This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] Fix jmisc.exp failures/bz 9320/java "void" issues
- From: "Ulrich Weigand" <uweigand at de dot ibm dot com>
- To: keiths at redhat dot com (Keith Seitz)
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:41:00 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: [RFA] Fix jmisc.exp failures/bz 9320/java "void" issues
Keith Seitz wrote:
> ChangeLog
> 2010-03-26 Keith Seitz <keiths@redhat.com>
>
> * c-typeprint.c (c_type_print_args): Don't print "void"
> for java, regardless of whether it is TYPE_PROTOTYPED.
> Use the passed-in language instead of current_language.
> (c_type_print_varspec_suffix): Use current_language instead
> of assuming language_c.
> * jv-typeprint.c (java_type_print_base): (bz 9320) Strip off
> any return type specifier from the physname.
>
> testsuite/ChangeLog
> 2010-03-26 Keith Seitz <keiths@redhat.com>
>
> * gdb.java/jmisc.exp (ptype jmisc): Allow the constructor to
> appear in the output before main.
This is OK, thanks.
> Index: testsuite/gdb.java/jmisc.exp
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.java/jmisc.exp,v
> retrieving revision 1.15
> diff -u -p -r1.15 jmisc.exp
> --- testsuite/gdb.java/jmisc.exp 9 Mar 2010 18:08:04 -0000 1.15
> +++ testsuite/gdb.java/jmisc.exp 26 Mar 2010 22:13:08 -0000
> @@ -79,6 +79,8 @@ if ![set_lang_java] then {
> gdb_expect {
> -re "type = class jmisc extends java.lang.Object \{\[\r\n\ \t]+void main\\(java\.lang\.String\\\[]\\);\[\r\n\ \t]+jmisc\\(\\);\[\r\n\ \t]+\}\[\r\n\ \t]+$gdb_prompt $"
> { pass "ptype jmisc" }
> + -re "type = class jmisc extends java.lang.Object \{\[\r\n\ \t]+jmisc\\(\\);\[\r\n\ \t]+void main\\(java\.lang\.String\\\[]\\);\[\r\n\ \t]+\}\[\r\n\ \t]+$gdb_prompt $"
> + { pass "ptype jmisc" }
> -re "type = class jmisc extends java.lang.Object \{\[\r\n\ \t]+void main\\(java\.lang\.String\\\[]\\)void;\[\r\n\ \t]+jmisc\\(\\);\[\r\n\ \t]+\}\[\r\n\ \t]+$gdb_prompt $" {
> # Just because GCC includes the signature doesn't mean we
> # should print it here. We already show the return type.
It should be OK to remove that last clause now (the KFAIL for 9320), right?
Bye,
Ulrich
--
Dr. Ulrich Weigand
GNU Toolchain for Linux on System z and Cell BE
Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com