This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [cplus] An initial use of the canonicalizer
- From: mec dot gnu at mindspring dot com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain)
- To: drow at mvista dot com
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 23:11:40 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: [cplus] An initial use of the canonicalizer
> So if we're printing <int, 33> somewhere and <int,33> somewhere else,
> that will be a bug. So I'd write all the tests to match <int, 33> only.
>
> That's the theory I'm going by at the moment at least.
That's a point in favor of accepting only "<int,33>".
However, I'm going to need to check gdb 6.0 against gdb-6_1-branch
eventually. It will help if I can run some of the same test scripts
from gdb-6_1-branch to check for regressions. That's why I want
"<int, ?33>", even though it fuzzes the test a little.
So I guess we're in disagreement here.
And man is there a mountain of much worse problems in gdb.cp/*.exp
right now. I'm checking classes.exp and it's full of stuff like:
"int i;{$ws};int j;.*\}\n$gdb_prompt$ "
Can you do anything about this:
(gdb) ptype class whatever
type = class whatever {
public:
int i;
int j;
public:
whatever & operator=(whatever const &);
whatever(whatever const &);
whatever();
}
The implicit functions appear with -gstabs+ and do not appear
with -gdwarf-2. This causes either a whole lot of extra pattern
lines or a lot of "int j;.*\}". I have low tolerance for ".*"
in a test pattern!
Michael C