This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [rfc] xfailed tests in gdb.c++/classes.exp
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: David Carlton <carlton at math dot stanford dot edu>
- Cc: gdb <gdb at sources dot redhat dot com>,Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec at shout dot net>
- Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 20:30:13 -0500
- Subject: Re: [rfc] xfailed tests in gdb.c++/classes.exp
- References: <ro18yy1lub7.fsf@jackfruit.Stanford.EDU>
Sorry for losing this message (again).
On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 02:53:00PM -0800, David Carlton wrote:
> I've been looking at the xfailed tests in gdb.c++/classes.exp, and
> some of the xfails aren't too convincing. Specifically, the tests
> that I'm looking at do ptypes of C++ data structures, and several of
> the xfails fall into one or both of these categories:
>
> 1) GDB prints "class X { public: ... }" when the programmer originally
> wrote "struct X { ... }".
Hmm, this should definitely be eiter a pass or an XFAIL. If you want
to let it pass, I'm fine with that decision.
> 2) GDB prints "class X { private: int x; ... }" when the programmer
> originally wrote "class X { int x; ... }".
This should either be a PASS or be corrected. Do you think that it's
more logical to print it as above or should we just elide the private?
I think we have already got logic to do this, so it might be an
outright bug that we don't.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer