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
- From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec at shout dot net>
- To: carlton at math dot stanford dot edu, drow at mvista dot com
- Cc: gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 21:51:06 -0600
- Subject: Re: [rfc] xfailed tests in gdb.c++/classes.exp
dc> 1) GDB prints "class X { public: ... }" when the programmer originally
dc> wrote "struct X { ... }".
I think this should be a PASS.
dc> 2) GDB prints "class X { private: int x; ... }" when the programmer
dc> 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: ... }'.
Michael C