This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

RFC: foo(unsigned int) vs. foo (unsigned) and foo(void) vs. foo()


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

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]