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]

[rfa/c++testsuite] (was Re: patch for PR gdb/574)


In article <20020816032649.GA30528@nevyn.them.org>, Daniel Jacobowitz
<drow@mvista.com> writes:

> Also, I'd appreciate it if you would submit a testsuite patch to run
> the reduced testcase you wrote.  More tests are always good.

Here it is.  The bug seemed idiosyncratic enough to not really fit
into any of the files or into any other general schema that I could
think of, so I just put it in a new file named after the bug number.

David Carlton
carlton@math.stanford.edu

2002-08-16  David Carlton  <carlton@math.stanford.edu>

	* gdb.c++/pr-574.exp: New file.
	* gdb.c++/pr-574.cc: New file.

--- /dev/null	Thu Apr 11 07:25:15 2002
+++ pr-574.exp	Fri Aug 16 16:00:06 2002
@@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
+# Copyright 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+
+# This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
+# it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
+# the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
+# (at your option) any later version.
+# 
+# This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
+# but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+# MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
+# GNU General Public License for more details.
+# 
+# You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
+# along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
+# Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA.  
+
+# Tests for the bug mentioned in PR gdb/574.  It's a bit
+# idiosyncratic, so I gave it its own file.
+
+# 2002-08-16  David Carlton <carlton@math.stanford.edu>
+
+# This file is part of the gdb testsuite
+
+if $tracelevel then {
+        strace $tracelevel
+        }
+
+if { [skip_cplus_tests] } { continue }
+
+#
+# test running programs
+#
+set prms_id 0
+set bug_id 0
+
+set testfile "pr-574"
+set srcfile ${testfile}.cc
+set binfile ${objdir}/${subdir}/${testfile}
+
+if  { [gdb_compile "${srcdir}/${subdir}/${srcfile}" "${binfile}" executable {debug c++}] != "" } {
+     gdb_suppress_entire_file "Testcase compile failed, so all tests in this file will automatically fail."
+}
+
+if [get_compiler_info ${binfile} "c++"] {
+    return -1
+}
+
+gdb_exit
+gdb_start
+gdb_reinitialize_dir $srcdir/$subdir
+gdb_load ${binfile}
+
+
+if ![runto_main] then {
+    perror "couldn't run to breakpoint"
+    continue
+}
+
+# One.
+gdb_test "break 20" "Breakpoint \[0-9\]*.*line 20\\."
+gdb_test "continue" "Continuing\\.\r\n\r\nBreakpoint.*at.*pr-574\\.cc:20\r\n.*" "continue to 20"
+
+# This failed, as long as the code was compiled with GCC v. 2.
+
+# Different compilers order the data for <A> differently, so I'm not
+# matching the result exactly.
+
+gdb_test "print *theB" "\\$\[0-9\]* = {<A> = {\[^}\]*}, static b = <optimized out>}" "PR gdb/574"
+
+gdb_exit
+return 0
--- /dev/null	Thu Apr 11 07:25:15 2002
+++ pr-574.cc	Fri Aug 16 15:21:49 2002
@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+/*
+  An attempt to replicate PR gdb/574 with a shorter program.
+
+  Printing out *theB failed if the program was compiled with GCC 2.95.
+*/
+
+class A {
+public:
+  virtual void foo() {};		// Stick in a virtual function.
+  int a;				// Stick in a data member.
+};
+
+class B : public A {
+  static int b;				// Stick in a static data member.
+};
+
+int main()
+{
+  B *theB = new B;
+}

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