From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10817 invoked by alias); 1 Jan 2004 21:47:47 -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 10810 invoked from network); 1 Jan 2004 21:47:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 1 Jan 2004 21:47:47 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.30 #1 (Debian)) id 1AcAfQ-0003PB-Hu; Thu, 01 Jan 2004 16:47:44 -0500 Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 21:47:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com, kettenis@chello.nl Subject: Re: C++ testsuite changes Message-ID: <20040101214744.GC12798@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain , gdb@sources.redhat.com, kettenis@chello.nl References: <20040101214033.BD3764B35A@berman.michael-chastain.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040101214033.BD3764B35A@berman.michael-chastain.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg00016.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jan 01, 2004 at 04:40:33PM -0500, Michael Chastain wrote: > On reflection, actually, I should keep the output identical for a > rewrite. And I still have a bunch of nice "before" files. > So I'll change classes.exp, derivation.exp, overload.exp, and > virtfunc.exp so that they print the same results in the same order. > > Then I can fix the problems in the test script one problem at a time. > > I can reproduce Mark's problem with virtfunc.exp by using the > sourceware version of TCL+Expect+Dejagnu rather than the released > versions. In particular, the sourceware version of Expect was last > updated in 1998. Argh! So I'll find some way to write virtfunc.exp > that works with these versions of TCL+Expect+Dejagnu. Can you identify what expect feature was causing the problem? I'm quite curious. I suspect we need to do an expect update... > As far the virtual base pointer goes, if you consider it a bug in gdb, > then I'll write a KFAIL arm for it and KFAIL it. Thank you. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer