how canonical are template names?

[Michael Elizabeth Chastain]

David C writes:
> When I tested the patch, I saw some regressions in
> gdb.c++/templates.exp.  But, on looking at the situation further, I'm
> not sure that they qualify as regressions.

templates.exp has issues.  :(  I'm working on a rewrite but it's on
the back burner right now.  You'll have to hand-analyze the results,
which I see you've done.

In fact, I'd like to just write a brand new templates test file,
include all the useful testing from the old one, and then strangle
the old one.

> Here, the new output switches the 'char' and 'volatile'.  It's still
> the same type.

GDB is okay here.

> type = class Baz<int, 115> {

GDB is incorrect here.  sz is of type 'char' so it should be printed
like that.

* Current:

> type = class Qux<char, &(string)> {

This is probably a judgement call.  My opinion is that it's legal for
gdb to emit this.  It's annoying but we have much worse problems to fix,
so just eat it and go on to the other 570 open PR's.  I would like to
accept the parens for another 3-5 years, and we can revisit them once
gcc 2 is no longer supported, stabs is dead, and so on.

I would file a PR about the '115' that should be a character 's'
and let the others go.  My two cents.

Michael C