This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] gdb.c++/method.exp: xfail for missing const
- 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 17:07:34 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb.c++/method.exp: xfail for missing const
- References: <200204081928.g38JS9A18557@duracef.shout.net>
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 02:28:09PM -0500, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
> > [I'll accept this. It could be an XPASS/KPASS if something really
> > bizarre happened and we started ADDING consts. But that'd be
> > caught elsewhere, so let's not worry about it.]
>
> I don't follow you. Do you mean "print this" in a non-const method that
> replies "const A *" or "const A * const"? That's already a straight FAIL.
What I meant is that, in the hypothetical situation where we
const-qualified things accidentally, if we were using GCC 2.95/stabs (a
combination which "we, the testsuite" know can not say "const"!)
printing out const would be quite surprising.
This is completely unimportant, of course.
> > I would prefer:
> > "XFAIL if stabs debugging format and GCC and GCC version < 3.1"
> > so that we go to FAIL instead of XFAIL if the stabs const code stops
> > working in either GCC or GDB.
>
> I would like that too. But how can the test script determine the gcc
> version? I don't see a way to do this in gdb/lib.exp.
It's not there. I can add it trivially, if you want. The major
version is there already; it's [ $gcc_compiled > 2 ]. We could just
set gcc_compiler_minor if necessary. They're __GNUC__ and
__GNUC_MINOR__.
> BTW I'll add a section for "const class {...} *" specifically so that
> we can kfail it eventually.
Thanks.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer