This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: gdb.c++ failures
On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 07:21:18PM +0000, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >>>>> "Michael" == Michael Elizabeth Chastain <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > Jason Merrill writes:
> >> method.exp: The 'print this' tests are failing because gdb is printing
> >> the types as, say, (A * const), and the test just wants (A *). The
> >> former is correct, since 'this' is readonly. Any objection to changing
> >> the test (and others affected) to allow the const?
> > Fred Fish submitted a patch for this.
> Quite so. Fred, it looks good to me.
> > There is a second issue in the patch about the type of "this" in const
> > methods. The type should be "const A *", and I would be willing to
> > accept "const A * const". But gdb with stabs is printing just plain "A
> > *".
> The stabs output from gcc ignores const and volatile. There is even a
> comment saying that "stabs does not distinguish const and volatile".
> The method qualifiers are described, and gdb could do the work to apply
> them to the type of 'this', but it's probably fine just to leave it as it
There are documented extensions to STABS to express both const and
volatile. GDB supports them, and documents them - see info stabs.
They're originally Sun extensions.
Could I persuade you to add them to GCC? It would take you less time
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer