This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] gdb.c++/method.exp: xfail for missing const


Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
> [I'll accept this.  It could be an XPASS/KPASS if something really
>  bizarre happened and we started ADDING consts.  But that'd be
>  caught elsewhere, so let's not worry about it.]

I don't follow you.  Do you mean "print this" in a non-const method that
replies "const A *" or "const A * const"?  That's already a straight FAIL.

> I would prefer:
>  "XFAIL if stabs debugging format and GCC and GCC version < 3.1"
> so that we go to FAIL instead of XFAIL if the stabs const code stops
> working in either GCC or GDB.

I would like that too.  But how can the test script determine the gcc
version?  I don't see a way to do this in gdb/lib.exp.

BTW I'll add a section for "const class {...} *" specifically so that
we can kfail it eventually.

Michael C


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]