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 ptypepattern
- From: David Carlton <carlton at kealia dot com>
- To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec at shout dot net>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 08:52:08 -0700
- Subject: Re: [patch/testsuite] gdb.c++/classes.exp: add another ptypepattern
- References: <200307021539.h62FdJWR025063@duracef.shout.net>
On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:39:19 -0400, Michael Elizabeth Chastain
<mec@shout.net> said:
> # gcc 3.3 -gstabs+
> # gcc gcc-3_3-branch -gstabs+
> # gcc HEAD -gstabs+
> ptype obj_with_enum
> type = class ClassWithEnum {
> public:
> ClassWithEnum::PrivEnum priv_enum;
> int x;
> ClassWithEnum & operator=(ClassWithEnum const&);
> ClassWithEnum(ClassWithEnum const&);
> ClassWithEnum();
> }
> (gdb) FAIL: gdb.c++/classes.exp: ptype obj_with_enum
Sigh. Do the GCC stabs maintainers just randomly change their output
to keep us on our toes, or what? Maybe I shouldn't be annoyed, given
that that output is actually what we (eventually) _want_ GDB to be
producing, but if we want stabs debugging to work well, we need to sit
down and figure out what names stabs should list for various types,
and we need GCC to stick with whatever that decision might be.
I'm happy enough with your patch, but I'd prefer a comment at the
beginning of the test noting that it only passes by accident:
something like
# NOTE: carlton/2003-07-02: Currently, this test only passes with GCC
# 3.3 and higher and with -gstabs+, and it only passes in those
# situations by accident.
David Carlton
carlton@kealia.com