This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [patch/testsuite] gdb.c++/classes.exp: add another ptype pattern
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: David Carlton <carlton at kealia dot com>
- Cc: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec at shout dot net>,gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 14:32:57 -0400
- Subject: Re: [patch/testsuite] gdb.c++/classes.exp: add another ptype pattern
- References: <200307021649.h62GnKLW026005@duracef.shout.net> <yf2of0cg8ly.fsf@hawaii.kealia.com>
On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 10:07:53AM -0700, David Carlton wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:49:20 -0400, Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec@shout.net> said:
>
> > The big stab for ClassWithEnum is the same, but the stab for the
> > nested enum changed from 'PrivEnum' to 'ClassWithEnum::PrivEnum'.
> > The hypothetical case has came to life. Argh!
>
> > Is it good for us that gcc 3.3 and later versions output
> > 'ClassWithEnum::PrivEnum'? Or should I file a bug report against
> > gcc and ask them to put it back to just plain 'PrivEnum'?
>
> It might be a good idea as part of a larger change (to the names of
> all nested classes). It's probably not a great idea if the change
> only involves enums nested with classes, though others might disagree
> with me on that.
>
> What certainly isn't a good idea is that it's changed and nobody has
> bothered to discuss this with us. Maybe a good course of action would
> be to post to gcc@ asking about it.
Eh, I believe Kevin B. did it:
2002-05-22 Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>
* dbxout.c (dbxout_class_name_qualifiers): New function.
(dbxout_symbol): Output class/struct qualifiers for a .stabs entry.
Ask him about it instead of blaming GCC...
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer