[cplus] An initial use of the canonicalizer

Michael Elizabeth Chastain mec.gnu@mindspring.com
Wed Dec 31 04:12:00 GMT 2003

> 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 {
      int i;
      int j;

      whatever & operator=(whatever const &);
      whatever(whatever const &);

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

More information about the Gdb-patches mailing list