Clean up gdb.c++ tests for dwarf 1

[David Carlton]

On Wed, 5 Feb 2003 15:30:17 -0600, Michael Elizabeth Chastain
<mec@shout.net> said:

> My preference order is (1) - (2) - (3) - (4).

I agree.  There's no reason to fix C++ DWARF 1 support that I can see,
so (4) is bad.  We're trying to clean up xfails; I don't think those
xfails give us any useful information, so we might as well get rid of
them, so (3) is bad.  (1) and (2) seem approximately equally desirable
to me; if (1) is easier, then we should just go with that.  There's no
reason to spend any more time on this issue than is absolutely
necessary.

David Carlton
carlton@math.stanford.edu