From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7584 invoked by alias); 1 Jan 2004 21:35:08 -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 7576 invoked from network); 1 Jan 2004 21:35:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 1 Jan 2004 21:35:07 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.30 #1 (Debian)) id 1AcATA-0003L4-Mf; Thu, 01 Jan 2004 16:35:04 -0500 Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 21:35:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com, kettenis@chello.nl Subject: Re: C++ testsuite changes Message-ID: <20040101213504.GA12798@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain , gdb@sources.redhat.com, kettenis@chello.nl References: <20040101212247.6D18E4B35A@berman.michael-chastain.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040101212247.6D18E4B35A@berman.michael-chastain.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg00013.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jan 01, 2004 at 04:22:47PM -0500, Michael Chastain wrote: > > 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? At this point I don't think it's worth it. For the remaining testcases perhaps? > > 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. It's a bug in GDB. I'm currently working on the C++ PRs. Unfortunately the one at the top of my list also triggers a GCC bug. So it is taking time. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer