This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>] RFA: Check that `Local' is not in scope when it shouldn't be
- From: David Carlton <carlton at math dot stanford dot edu>
- To: Jim Blandy <jimb at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: 04 Feb 2003 14:16:03 -0800
- Subject: Re: [Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>] RFA: Check that `Local' is not in scope when it shouldn't be
- References: <vt2bs3gpmfb.fsf@zenia.red-bean.com><vt2el6nww43.fsf@zenia.red-bean.com>
On 04 Feb 2003 16:53:48 -0500, Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com> said:
> David Carlton originally asked:
>> I'm confused: don't you want to do the first 'ptype Local' _before_
>> going up from foobar? In which case your added test might as well
>> happen after you go up from foobar but before running to marker2.
> The test doesn't go up from foobar; it goes up from marker1, which is
> called from foobar, so the "up" makes foobar the current scope.
Oh, duh, sorry about that.
> Michael Chastain corrected the way I'd written the second kfail
> patch. I believe I've done it right this time --- so that if the
> output changes from the current known incorrect output to anything
> other than the correct output, the known failure will become a
> straight failure.
Right.
> I couldn't figure out, though, why folks were advising me to use
> setup_kfail with a pattern that always matches, instead of simply
> calling kfail directly. So I just used kfail.
Yes, kfail is better.
Approved; thanks for taking care of this. My list of
non-{PASS,KFAIL}s in gdb.c++ is dwindling nicely.
David Carlton
carlton@math.stanford.edu