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

[Pedro Alves <pedro at codesourcery dot com>]

On Friday 01 April 2011 16:53:30, Keith Seitz wrote:
> 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 

(a KFAIL)

> or remove them altogether and add a bugzilla entry to track this. 

Yeah, I'll do this.

Thanks!

-- 
Pedro Alves