This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [patch/testsuite] gdb.c++/classes.exp: add another ptypepattern
- From: David Carlton <carlton at kealia dot com>
- To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec at shout dot net>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 10:07:53 -0700
- Subject: Re: [patch/testsuite] gdb.c++/classes.exp: add another ptypepattern
- References: <200307021649.h62GnKLW026005@duracef.shout.net>
On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:49:20 -0400, Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec@shout.net> said:
> The big stab for ClassWithEnum is the same, but the stab for the
> nested enum changed from 'PrivEnum' to 'ClassWithEnum::PrivEnum'.
> The hypothetical case has came to life. Argh!
> Is it good for us that gcc 3.3 and later versions output
> 'ClassWithEnum::PrivEnum'? Or should I file a bug report against
> gcc and ask them to put it back to just plain 'PrivEnum'?
It might be a good idea as part of a larger change (to the names of
all nested classes). It's probably not a great idea if the change
only involves enums nested with classes, though others might disagree
with me on that.
What certainly isn't a good idea is that it's changed and nobody has
bothered to discuss this with us. Maybe a good course of action would
be to post to gcc@ asking about it.
> So it's hard to write the test case at this point. But it's done the
> job of alerting us to a difference in gcc output.
Right.
David Carlton
carlton@kealia.com