This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [cplus] An initial use of the canonicalizer
- From: mec dot gnu at mindspring dot com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain)
- To: drow at mvista dot com
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:25:20 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: [cplus] An initial use of the canonicalizer
mec> So there used to be a volatile required, but now there is none.
mec> That's the part I don't like.
drow> That's the part that will be going away when I have more time. I'm
drow> going to stabilize the output first, and tighten up the testcases one
drow> test at a time second; too many changes, otherwise.
Yes, I'm sorry -- I shouldn't jump on your back about this.
(I'm having a bad day with gdb.cp already).
drow> So you're OK if I make these tests fail when run against GDB 6.0?
drow> I'm a little confused by your response.
I'm okay with the idea of accepting only "char volatile*",
or whichever flavor you land on. When I run that test script against
gdb 6.0, it will FAIL with gdb 6.0 and PASS with gdb HEAD.
I can handle that.
To look at it another way, I'm okay whenever the test suite gets
more stringent and stuff that used to PASS (but shouldn't)
now FAILs. And other people won't notice a problem as long as
gdb is fixed before the test suite is improved.
A question about the "<int,33>" versus "<int, 33>".
Is "<int,33>" a bug? I don't consider it a bug, so it would bother me
if that started FAILing. That's why I want the pattern to be
"<int, ?33>".
Michael C