This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] gdb.c++/method.exp
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec at shout dot net>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 14:43:25 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb.c++/method.exp
- References: <200204081717.g38HHO701077@duracef.shout.net>
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 12:17:24PM -0500, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
> > Does anything currently produce A const * const? It's probably
> > legal...
>
> I haven't seen any "A const * const". I guess I would have to accommodate
> that if somebody saw one. I'm not inclined to put it in at this time.
Agree.
> Here's what I've got (2002-04-04, native i686-pc-linux-gnu):
>
> const A * const
> gcc 2.95.3 -gdwarf-2
> gcc 2.96-rh -gdwarf-2
> gcc 3.0.4 -gdwarf-2
> gcc gcc-3_1-branch -gdwarf-2
> gcc HEAD -gdwarf-2
Legitimate.
> A *
> gcc 2.95.3 -gstabs+
> gcc 2.96-rh -gstabs+
> gcc 3.0.4 -gstabs+
XFAIL.
> const class {...} * const
> gcc gcc-3_1-branch -gstabs+
> gcc HEAD -gstabs+
Broken.
> "const class {...} * const" looks like a gdb bug to me. Again I will
> look in the generated code. That will likely be a FAIL with a bug
> report (soon to be a KFAIL).
There is a PR for this, though it isn't obvious. It's... uhm....
gdb/277. I even describe the solution. I'm too busy to do it this
week, but hopefully soon.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer