Re: [RFA] varobj: call CHECK_TYPEDEF

Andrew Cagney
2003-06-11T21:01:08Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 52 bytes --]

Er, this is C++, Daniel, David or MichaelC?

Andrew

[-- Attachment #2: mailbox-message://ac131313@movemail/fsf/gdb/patches#15270852 --]
[-- Type: message/rfc822, Size: 3081 bytes --]

From: Keith Seitz <keiths@redhat.com>
To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>
Cc: "gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com" <gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFA] varobj: call CHECK_TYPEDEF
Date: 11 Jun 2003 13:15:10 -0700
Message-ID: <1055362509.1571.63.camel@lindt.uglyboxes.com>

On Thu, 2003-04-24 at 15:18, Andrew Cagney wrote:

So where do we stand with this? Shall I check it in and deal with the
fallout? (I need to go through and double-check all the typedef stuff in
varobj anyway, but at least this will allow users to use varobj, even if
it isn't cosmetically perfect.)

Keith

> > Index: insight219-b.cc
> > ===================================================================
> > RCS file: insight219-b.cc
> > diff -N insight219-b.cc
> > --- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
> > +++ insight219-b.cc 24 Apr 2003 21:54:00 -0000
> > @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
> > +#include "insight219.h"
> > +
> > +B::~B() {}
> > +
>
>
> > Index: insight219.cc
> > ===================================================================
> > RCS file: insight219.cc
> > diff -N insight219.cc
> > --- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
> > +++ insight219.cc 24 Apr 2003 21:54:00 -0000
> > @@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
> > +#include "insight219.h"
> > +
> > +int
> > +main(int argc, char *argv[])
> > +{
> > + B *b = new B();
> > + return 0;
> > +};
> > Index: insight219.h
> > ===================================================================
> > RCS file: insight219.h
> > diff -N insight219.h
> > --- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
> > +++ insight219.h 24 Apr 2003 21:54:00 -0000
> > @@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
> > +class B
> > +{
> > +public:
> > + virtual ~B();
> > +
> > +private:
> > + int b;
> > +};
>
>