From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31323 invoked by alias); 5 Dec 2006 21:25:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 31300 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Dec 2006 21:25:41 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from viper.snap.net.nz (HELO viper.snap.net.nz) (202.37.101.8) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Dec 2006 21:25:36 +0000 Received: from kahikatea.snap.net.nz (p202-124-125-123.snap.net.nz [202.124.125.123]) by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AD1D3D81F7; Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:26:33 +1300 (NZDT) Received: by kahikatea.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 500) id 08D3BBE3D4; Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:21:07 +1300 (NZDT) From: Nick Roberts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17781.58050.562000.498586@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 21:25:00 -0000 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Vladimir Prus , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: MI: fix base members in references In-Reply-To: <20061205211214.GA28333@nevyn.them.org> References: <17781.56458.807690.396014@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20061205211214.GA28333@nevyn.them.org> X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 22.0.91.13 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-12/txt/msg00046.txt.bz2 > > Actually Vladimir's other patch, MI/C++/references fixup > > (http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2006-11/msg00373.html), seems to fix > > this. As it also fixes the more general problem of updating references can > > this not be applied instead? > > They can both go in as far as I'm concerned; I think they're both > needed. I hadn't got to that one yet. The comment in varobj.c refers to "Baseclass" and I presume the original author included the case TYPE_CODE (value_type (parent->value)) == TYPE_CODE_REF for a specific reason. If the patch (fix base members) is a reaction to the reported bug, it's seems unnecessary with the other patch and therefore, I think it shouldn't be applied. If you can see more generally that it's needed then thats another matter, and clearly it should be applied. -- Nick http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob