C++ testsuite changes

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Thu, Jan 01, 2004 at 04:22:47PM -0500, Michael Chastain wrote:
> > I would really prefer it if you didn't rewrite the tests to accomodate
> > the ABI change (a very specific change) and change all sorts of other
> > tests at the same time.  It makes it impossible to tell from your
> > patches when you make a change like this one.
> 
> Sigh, you're right.  I should have done this in several stages,
> where the first stage is lot of gdb_test_multiple with no change
> in output.
> 
> I can go back and make it that way if you want.  Shall I do that?

At this point I don't think it's worth it.  For the remaining testcases
perhaps?

> > Eh... why don't you?  It's a feature that we don't print the virtual
> > base pointer in recent gcc/dwarf combinations.
> 
> Of course it's acceptable if gdb does *not* print the virtual base
> pointer.
> 
> If gdb *does* print a virtual base pointer, do we consider that a
> bug in gcc?  Because that's what "XFAIL" means.  Or is it a bug in gdb?
> Then I should file a PR for it.
> 
> My opinion is that we should just accept it.  There's far worse bugs
> in C++ support that aren't getting any attention.

It's a bug in GDB.

I'm currently working on the C++ PRs.  Unfortunately the one at the top
of my list also triggers a GCC bug.  So it is taking time.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer