This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: C++ testsuite changes
- From: mec dot gnu at mindspring dot com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain)
- To: drow at mvista dot com, mec dot gnu at mindspring dot com
- Cc: gdb at sources dot redhat dot com, kettenis at chello dot nl
- Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 16:22:47 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: C++ testsuite changes
> I would really prefer it if you didn't rewrite the tests to accomodate
> the ABI change (a very specific change) and change all sorts of other
> tests at the same time. It makes it impossible to tell from your
> patches when you make a change like this one.
Sigh, you're right. I should have done this in several stages,
where the first stage is lot of gdb_test_multiple with no change
in output.
I can go back and make it that way if you want. Shall I do that?
> Eh... why don't you? It's a feature that we don't print the virtual
> base pointer in recent gcc/dwarf combinations.
Of course it's acceptable if gdb does *not* print the virtual base
pointer.
If gdb *does* print a virtual base pointer, do we consider that a
bug in gcc? Because that's what "XFAIL" means. Or is it a bug in gdb?
Then I should file a PR for it.
My opinion is that we should just accept it. There's far worse bugs
in C++ support that aren't getting any attention.
Michael C