This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] gdb.c++/method.exp
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec at shout dot net>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 11:19:35 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb.c++/method.exp
- References: <200204081512.g38FCkt17254@duracef.shout.net>
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:12:46AM -0500, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> Good morning Daniel,
> > Erm... did we reach a conclusion about whether those const's were
> > really optional? In a const method, there should be a const on the
> > type of 'this'.
>
> The old script accepted these strings:
>
> // non-const method
> "A *" => PASS
> default => FAIL
>
> // const method, gcc_compiled=TRUE
> "A *" => PASS
> "const class A *" => XFAIL
> default => FAIL
>
> // const method, gcc_compiled=FALSE
> "const class A *" => PASS
> "A *" => XFAIL
> default => FAIL
>
> // non-const method
> "funk *" => PASS
> default => FAIL
>
> One problem is that none of the tests accepted the second "const"
> after the "*". Another problem, obviously, is the weird logic
> for const methods that depends on gcc_compiled, and *rejects*
> "const A *" for const methods when gcc_compiled=TRUE.
>
> The new script accepts these strings:
>
> // non-const method
> "class A * const" => PASS
> "class A *" => PASS
> "A * const" => PASS
> "A *" => PASS
> default => FAIL
>
> // const method
> "const class A * const" => PASS
> "const class A *" => PASS
> "const A * const" => PASS
> "const A *" => PASS
> "class A * const" => PASS
> "class A *" => PASS
> "A * const" => PASS
> "A *" => PASS
> default => FAIL
>
> // non-const method
> "class A * const" => PASS
> "class A *" => PASS
> "A * const" => PASS
> "A *" => PASS
> default => FAIL
>
> So the old script reported FAIL to "const A *" for a constant method
> when the compiler is gcc. The new script reports PASS. That's a
> definite improvement.
Yes, it is!
> The old script reported PASS to "A *" for a constant method when the
> compiler is gcc. That is problematic. Right now the new script also
> reports PASS, to be compatible with the old script.
>
> Now is a good time to break compatibility anyways. The new script looks
> like this right now (for a const method):
>
> gdb_test "print this" \
> "\\$\[0-9\]* = \\((const |)(class |)A *\\* *(const|)\\) $hex" \
> "print this in A::bar"
>
> What do you think of this:
>
> gdb_test "print this" \
> "\\$\[0-9\]* = \\(const (class |)A *\\* *(const|)\\) $hex" \
> "print this in A::bar"
I think this is right. That will cause failures for 2.95/stabs and
3.0/stabs; we can XFAIL appropriately (based on version numbers even!).
Does anything currently produce A const * const? It's probably
legal...
--
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer