This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [patch/rfc] gdb.c++/templates.exp, pr gdb/1063
- From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec at shout dot net>
- To: carlton at math dot stanford dot edu, drow at mvista dot com
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:15:23 -0600
- Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] gdb.c++/templates.exp, pr gdb/1063
David C writes:
> Hmm. I guess, for now, just leaving the HP regexps in place is
> correct.
That sounds good to me.
I have heard that HP has a new compiler which follows the multi-vendor
standard C++ ABI. In my dreams, that means that the gcc v3 code will
work with that new compiler.
At some point we'll have to face the HP music.
> So my current plan is to leave the HP regexps (but add a comment), to
> PASS the case where GDB can't print out the type info, to KFAIL the
> case where GDB incorrectly prints out one of the specializations (with
> reference to a nested types PR), and to close PR gdb/1063 (with an
> appropriate comment). How does that sound?
Again that sounds good to me.
The old style was to use gdb_test as much as possible. But I actually
like this new multi-armed gdb_expect style. Maybe when things calm down
we can move to Daniel's new gdb_test_multiple, too.
I'll be reviewing the patch later this evening after I re-do my
HAVE_UINTPTR_T patch.
Michael C