Re: [PATCH] Fix broken recursion detection when printing static members

[osscontribute <osscontribute@gmail.com>]

I merged the test into test_static_members() in classes.exp. Patch has been submitted.

Thanks

Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone

> Op 25 okt. 2017 om 04:23 heeft Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@polymtl.ca> het volgende geschreven:
> 
>> On 2017-10-24 06:55, Patrick Frants wrote:
>> The fix shrinks the stack using obstack_blank_fast() with a negative
>> value as described at the bottom of this page:
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libiberty/Extra-Fast-Growing.html
>> "You can use obstack_blank_fast with a “negative” size argument to
>> make the current object smaller. Just don’t try to shrink it beyond
>> zero length—there’s no telling what will happen if you do that.
>> Earlier versions of obstacks allowed you to use obstack_blank to
>> shrink objects. This will no longer work."
>> A unit test (gdb.cp/printstaticrecursion.exp) was added. No new
>> regression has been observed in testsuite/gdb.cp/*.exp.
> 
> As mentioned in my last review, did you have a chance to see look if it was possible to improve the existing test about recursive static fields in gdb.cp/classes.exp, rather than introducing a new one?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Simon