This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
RFC: foo(unsigned int) vs. foo (unsigned) and foo(void) vs. foo()
- To: gdb-patches at sourceware dot cygnus dot com, fnasser at cygnus dot com
- Subject: RFC: foo(unsigned int) vs. foo (unsigned) and foo(void) vs. foo()
- From: Michael Snyder <msnyder at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 14:28:33 -0800
- Organization: Red Hat
Regarding the changes associated with the new G++ ABI, and
following the example set by Michael Chastain in his patch
for the ovldbreak.exp test... I would like to know if anyone
would object to the idea of making the following changes
throughout the gdb.c++ testsuite:
1) Wherever foo(unsigned int) is expected, also accept foo(unsigned).
2) Wherever foo(void) is expected, also accept foo().
Should we go ahead and relax the testsuite in this way?
Or should we fix GDB so that the new output matches the old?
Michael