From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4700 invoked by alias); 1 Jan 2004 21:23:20 -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 4687 invoked from network); 1 Jan 2004 21:23:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO tisch.mail.mindspring.net) (207.69.200.157) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 1 Jan 2004 21:23:19 -0000 Received: from user-119a90a.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.36.10] helo=berman.michael-chastain.com) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1AcAHI-00048W-00; Thu, 01 Jan 2004 16:22:48 -0500 Received: by berman.michael-chastain.com (Postfix, from userid 502) id 6D18E4B35A; Thu, 1 Jan 2004 16:22:47 -0500 (EST) To: drow@mvista.com, mec.gnu@mindspring.com Subject: Re: C++ testsuite changes Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com, kettenis@chello.nl Message-Id: <20040101212247.6D18E4B35A@berman.michael-chastain.com> Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 21:23:00 -0000 From: mec.gnu@mindspring.com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain) X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg00011.txt.bz2 > I would really prefer it if you didn't rewrite the tests to accomodate > the ABI change (a very specific change) and change all sorts of other > tests at the same time. It makes it impossible to tell from your > patches when you make a change like this one. Sigh, you're right. I should have done this in several stages, where the first stage is lot of gdb_test_multiple with no change in output. I can go back and make it that way if you want. Shall I do that? > Eh... why don't you? It's a feature that we don't print the virtual > base pointer in recent gcc/dwarf combinations. Of course it's acceptable if gdb does *not* print the virtual base pointer. If gdb *does* print a virtual base pointer, do we consider that a bug in gcc? Because that's what "XFAIL" means. Or is it a bug in gdb? Then I should file a PR for it. My opinion is that we should just accept it. There's far worse bugs in C++ support that aren't getting any attention. Michael C