This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [rfc] xfailed tests in gdb.c++/classes.exp
>>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com> writes:
Daniel> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:51:06PM -0600, Michael Elizabeth
Daniel> Chastain wrote:
dc> 1) GDB prints "class X { public: ... }" when the programmer
dc> originally wrote "struct X { ... }".
>> I think this should be a PASS.
>>
dc> 2) GDB prints "class X { private: int x; ... }" when the
dc> programmer originally wrote "class X { int x; ... }".
>> I think this should be a PASS.
>>
>> David C formulated this idea as: if the text can be fed back into
>> a C++ compiler and generate the same results, then it's okay. By
>> and large I agree with that.
>>
>> If you look in gnats, you will see users complaining that they
>> can't print their string variables (because C++ strings are
>> implemented with layers of templates and derived classes). They
>> are complaining that operator overloading doesn't work. They are
>> complaining that they have a std::vector<Foo> and they can't even
>> look inside the damn thing.
>>
>> They aren't complaining that they wrote 'struct X { ... }' but gdb
>> prints 'class X { public: ... }'.
Daniel> Sure. But I suspect 2) represents an actual bug. Fixing
Daniel> this is about three lines in c-typeprint.c. Should we or
Daniel> shouldn't we?
Why? In both cases, the source code text and the GDB printout are
equivalent by the C++ rules. You can replace the one by the other
without any impact on the meaning of the program.
Certainly for those who are only half conversant with C++ type rules,
having "struct foo" replaced by "class foo { public:" may come as a
surprise, but that's a good incentive for them to learn the
language...
paul