This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [testsuite/c++] Why is there one fail in demangle.exp?
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec at shout dot net>
- Cc: gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 09:23:53 -0500
- Subject: Re: [testsuite/c++] Why is there one fail in demangle.exp?
- References: <200112040957.DAA12609@duracef.shout.net>
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 03:57:30AM -0600, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> The comment above the test is:
>
> ## 1999-04-19: "Fix from Dale Hawkins". Shouldn't segfault.
>
> This implies to me that an old version of gdb used to segfault on
> that input.
>
> Note that the release date of gdb-4.18 was 1999-04-09. So I built one:
>
> mec@duracef:/tmp/mec/build$ gdb/gdb
> GNU gdb 4.18
> Copyright 1998 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> GDB is free software, covered by the GNU General Public License, and you are
> welcome to change it and/or distribute copies of it under certain conditions.
> Type "show copying" to see the conditions.
> There is absolutely no warranty for GDB. Type "show warranty" for details.
> This GDB was configured as "i686-pc-linux-gnu".
> (gdb) maintenance demangle __thunk_64__0RL__list__Q29CosNaming20_proxy_NamingConMtextUlRPt25_CORBA_Unbounded_Sequence1ZQ29CosNaming7BindingRPQ29CosNaming15BindingIterator
> Segmentation fault (core dumped)
>
> > I can see that being wrong (_0RL__list as a function name is a little
> > suspicious). But the test expects "Can't demangle".
>
> I don't know what the right answer is. It looks like the intent of the
> test is to check whether the demangler crashes on this input. It's
> quite possible that the input is purposely malformed.
>
> I'm inclined to approve both "Can't demangle" and any reasonable
> demangling of the input as PASS, with a comment to the effect that
> gdb 4.18 segfaults on this input.
Dan Berlin commented in a separate message that the string has an
ambiguous meaning in the v2 mangling grammar. I don't believe that the
FAIL: serves any purpose, though, so I'd like to make it pass but put a
comment to the effect that this isn't 100% accurate. Patch later.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer