Re: [RFA] More C++ v3 tweaks

[Michael Snyder <msnyder at cygnus dot com>]

Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> 
> This patch is approved for both HEAD and gdb_5-1-2001-07-29-branch.
> 
> I changesproofread this in an unusual wachangesy: I performed the same substitutions
> of s/void/(void|)/ and s/const &/const ?&/ on my own copy, then
> compared against Michael Snyder's version.
> 
> I ran before-and-after tests with:
> 
>   gcc: 2.95.3 3.0.2 HEAD gcc-3_0-branch
>   gdb: HEAD gdb_5_1-2001-07-29-branch
> 
> I'm a little bit concerned that this test now PASSes on a lot
> of test output like this:
> 
>   # gcc-3.0.2-gdb-HEAD/gdb.log
>   (gdb) ptype VA
>   type = class VA {
>     public:
>       int va;
> 
>       VA & operator=(VA const&);
>       VA(VA const&);
>       VA(VA const&);
>       VA();
>       VA();
>   }
>   (gdb) PASS: gdb.c++/virtfunc.exp: ptype VA (obsolescent gcc or gdb)
> 
> The duplicate constructor names are confusing.
> There is an open PR for this (PR gdb/27).
> 
> Not only does it PASS, but it says "obsolescent gcc or gdb"!
> 
> However, there is another test script that covers this (classes.exp),
> so it is okay to let virtfunc.exp PASS on this.

I think the issue of duplicate constructors is separate from
the issue of whether we should accept VA() as well as VA(void).
But I do agree that I wish we (someone) would get around to 
addressing all these issues.

Michael