From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7422 invoked by alias); 28 Feb 2003 03:51:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 7415 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2003 03:51:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 28 Feb 2003 03:51:09 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1S3p6525237; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 21:51:06 -0600 Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 03:51:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200302280351.h1S3p6525237@duracef.shout.net> To: carlton@math.stanford.edu, drow@mvista.com Subject: Re: [rfc] xfailed tests in gdb.c++/classes.exp Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00603.txt.bz2 dc> 1) GDB prints "class X { public: ... }" when the programmer originally dc> wrote "struct X { ... }". I think this should be a PASS. dc> 2) GDB prints "class X { private: int x; ... }" when the programmer dc> originally wrote "class X { int x; ... }". I think this should be a PASS. David C formulated this idea as: if the text can be fed back into a C++ compiler and generate the same results, then it's okay. By and large I agree with that. If you look in gnats, you will see users complaining that they can't print their string variables (because C++ strings are implemented with layers of templates and derived classes). They are complaining that operator overloading doesn't work. They are complaining that they have a std::vector and they can't even look inside the damn thing. They aren't complaining that they wrote 'struct X { ... }' but gdb prints 'class X { public: ... }'. Michael C