Re: FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: list base::overload(void)

[Keith Seitz <keiths at redhat dot com>]

On 04/01/2011 08:09 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> > # Overloaded methods (all are const -- we try to use the void
> > # method with and without specifying "const")
>
> Why is the non-const variant tried and expected to pass?

Yes, as you say:

> Is this trying to be a reminder that GDB could be more forgiving
> and accept the non-const overload, perhaps?

I wouldn't go so far as to say that gdb needs to be forgiving. This case 
is unambiguous, and IMO it is simply a bug/mis-feature. I put those 
tests there as a reminder that someone needs to figure out how to fix 
this... But:

> Can we just drop it, like below?

Perhaps it would have been better to either XFAIL or remove them 
altogether and add a bugzilla entry to track this. I was hoping to get 
to it, but as it turned out, there were "bigger fish to fry. :-(

Keith