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: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec at shout dot net>
- To: drow at mvista dot com
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 12:17:24 -0500
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb.c++/method.exp
Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
> Does anything currently produce A const * const? It's probably
> legal...
I haven't seen any "A const * const". I guess I would have to accommodate
that if somebody saw one. I'm not inclined to put it in at this time.
Here's what I've got (2002-04-04, native i686-pc-linux-gnu):
const A * const
gcc 2.95.3 -gdwarf-2
gcc 2.96-rh -gdwarf-2
gcc 3.0.4 -gdwarf-2
gcc gcc-3_1-branch -gdwarf-2
gcc HEAD -gdwarf-2
A *
gcc 2.95.3 -gstabs+
gcc 2.96-rh -gstabs+
gcc 3.0.4 -gstabs+
const class {...} * const
gcc gcc-3_1-branch -gstabs+
gcc HEAD -gstabs+
"const A * const" should always be a PASS.
"A *" should be a FAIL or an XFAIL, depending on what is in the
generated code. If gcc is omitting the const then it's an XFAIL.
I will grub around in the generated code to figure that out.
"const class {...} * const" looks like a gdb bug to me. Again I will
look in the generated code. That will likely be a FAIL with a bug
report (soon to be a KFAIL).
Michael C