Re: [rfa/testsuite] more tests in gdb.c++/m-static

[David Carlton <carlton at math dot stanford dot edu>]

In article <ro1hehmrfd2.fsf@jackfruit.Stanford.EDU>, David Carlton <carlton@math.Stanford.EDU> writes:

> Here are the revised patches for m-static

Whoops: my patch that claims to be for m-static.exp is really a second
copy of the patch for m-static.cc.  One more time, with feeling:

David Carlton
carlton@math.stanford.edu

2002-08-22  David Carlton  <carlton@math.stanford.edu>

	* gdb.c++/m-static.exp: Remove breakpoints depending on line
	numbers, and replace them by use of "next" or relative
	breakpoints.
	Add test 4.
	* gdb.c++/m-static.cc: Add test 4.
	* gdb.c++/m-static.h: New file.
	* gdb.c++/m-static1.cc: New file.

Index: m-static.exp
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.c++/m-static.exp,v
retrieving revision 1.1
diff -u -p -r1.1 m-static.exp
--- m-static.exp	30 May 2002 19:09:47 -0000	1.1
+++ m-static.exp	22 Aug 2002 17:15:03 -0000
@@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
 
 # Tests for member static data
 # 2002-05-13  Benjamin Kosnik  <bkoz@redhat.com>
+# 2002-08-22  David Carlton <carlton@math.stanford.edu>
 
 # This file is part of the gdb testsuite
 
@@ -33,9 +34,10 @@ set bug_id 0
 
 set testfile "m-static"
 set srcfile ${testfile}.cc
+set srcfile1 ${testfile}1.cc
 set binfile ${objdir}/${subdir}/${testfile}
 
-if  { [gdb_compile "${srcdir}/${subdir}/${srcfile}" "${binfile}" executable {debug c++}] != "" } {
+if  { [gdb_compile "${srcdir}/${subdir}/${srcfile} ${srcdir}/${subdir}/${srcfile1}" "${binfile}" executable {debug c++}] != "" } {
      gdb_suppress_entire_file "Testcase compile failed, so all tests in this file will automatically fail."
 }
 
@@ -55,8 +57,7 @@ if ![runto_main] then {
 }
 
 # One.
-gdb_test "break 68" "Breakpoint \[0-9\]*.*line 68\\."
-gdb_test "continue" "Continuing\\.\r\n\r\nBreakpoint.*at.*m-static\\.cc:68\r\n.*" "continue to 68"
+gdb_test "next" "" "next"
 
 # simple object, static const bool
 gdb_test "print test1.test" "\\$\[0-9\]* = true" "simple object, static const bool"
@@ -71,8 +72,7 @@ gdb_test "print test1.key2" "\\$\[0-9\]*
 gdb_test "print test1.value" "\\$\[0-9\]* = oriental" "simple object, static enum"
 
 # Two.
-gdb_test "break 69" "Breakpoint \[0-9\]*.*line 69\\."
-gdb_test "continue" "Continuing\\.\r\n\r\nBreakpoint.*at.*m-static\\.cc:69\r\n.*" "continue to 69"
+gdb_test "next" "" "next"
 
 # derived template object, base static const bool
 gdb_test "print test2.test" "\\$\[0-9\]* = true" "derived template object, base static const bool"
@@ -90,8 +90,11 @@ gdb_test "print test2.value" "\\$\[0-9\]
 gdb_test "print test2.value_derived" "\\$\[0-9\].* = etruscan" "derived template object, static enum"
 
 # Three.
-gdb_test "break 71" "Breakpoint \[0-9\]*.*line 71\\."
-gdb_test "continue" "Continuing\\.\r\n\r\nBreakpoint.*at.*m-static\\.cc:71\r\n.*" "continue to 71"
+
+# With the compiler that I'm using, execution won't stop at the test4
+# initializer.  This seems the most robust way to handle that.
+gdb_breakpoint "+2"
+gdb_continue_to_breakpoint "end of initializers"
 
 # template object, static derived template data member's base static const bool
 gdb_test "print test3.data.test" "\\$\[0-9\].* = true" "template object, static const bool"
@@ -107,6 +110,22 @@ gdb_test "print test3.data.value" "\\$\[
 
 #  template object, static derived template data member's static enum
 gdb_test "print test3.data.value_derived" "\\$\[0-9\].* = etruscan" "template object, static derived enum"
+
+# 2002-08-16
+# Four.
+
+# No next: see test3 comment.
+
+# static const int initialized in another file.
+gdb_test "print test4.elsewhere" "\\$\[0-9\].* = 221" "static const int initialized elsewhere"
+
+# static const int that nobody initializes.  From PR gdb/635.
+gdb_test "print test4.nowhere" "field nowhere is nonexistent or has been optimised out" "static const int initialized nowhere"
+
+# Perhaps at some point test4 should also include a test for a static
+# const int that was initialized in the header file.  But I'm not sure
+# that GDB's current behavior in such situations is either consistent
+# across platforms or optimal, so I'm not including one now.
 
 gdb_exit
 return 0

Index: m-static.cc
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.c++/m-static.cc,v
retrieving revision 1.1
diff -u -p -r1.1 m-static.cc
--- m-static.cc	30 May 2002 19:09:47 -0000	1.1
+++ m-static.cc	22 Aug 2002 17:12:20 -0000
@@ -53,6 +53,10 @@ namespace __gnu_test
 
   template<typename T>
     gnu_obj_2<int> gnu_obj_3<T>::data(etruscan);
+
+  // 2002-08-16
+  // Test four.
+#include "m-static.h"
 } 
 
 // instantiate templates explicitly so their static members will exist
@@ -67,6 +71,7 @@ int main()
   gnu_obj_1		test1(egyptian, 4589);
   gnu_obj_2<long>	test2(roman);
   gnu_obj_3<long>	test3(greek);
+  gnu_obj_4		test4;
 
   return 0;
 }

--- /dev/null	Thu Apr 11 07:25:15 2002
+++ m-static.h	Fri Aug 16 13:24:37 2002
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+// 2002-08-16
+
+class gnu_obj_4
+{
+ public:
+  static const int elsewhere;
+  static const int nowhere;
+  // At some point, perhaps:
+  // static const int everywhere = 317;
+};
+

--- /dev/null	Thu Apr 11 07:25:15 2002
+++ m-static1.cc	Fri Aug 16 13:11:02 2002
@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+// 2002-08-16
+
+namespace __gnu_test {
+#include "m-static.h"
+}
+
+using namespace __gnu_test;
+
+const int gnu_obj_4::elsewhere = 221;