From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17487 invoked by alias); 10 Dec 2006 20:09:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 17477 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Dec 2006 20:09:55 -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; Sun, 10 Dec 2006 20:09:49 +0000 Received: from kahikatea.snap.net.nz (p202-124-125-222.snap.net.nz [202.124.125.222]) by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1681A3D83FA; Mon, 11 Dec 2006 09:11:00 +1300 (NZDT) Received: by kahikatea.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 500) id D6199BE3F2; Mon, 11 Dec 2006 09:05:25 +1300 (NZDT) From: Nick Roberts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17788.26755.281524.213133@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 20:09:00 -0000 To: Vladimir Prus Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: MI: fix base members in references In-Reply-To: <200612101423.14154.ghost@cs.msu.su> References: <17787.10504.215397.177658@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <200612100114.44118.ghost@cs.msu.su> <17787.35236.492750.204386@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <200612101423.14154.ghost@cs.msu.su> X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 22.0.91.15 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/msg00157.txt.bz2 > > It seems to handle variable objects of references to pointers correctly. > > Have you tried it? > > No, I trust you when you say that the patch as the whole fixes the problem. > However, given the definition of get_type_deref I don't understand how it > does that. You patch has four hunks, and in two of the you check for pointer > type and call get_target_type immediately after call to get_type_deref. It > looks like it should have no effect, so I'd like to understand what I'm > missing. Its not about trust but verification. If you find my patch does what I think it does then I'm probably right and you'll get to understand what you're missing. If you find it doesn't work then I'll have look more carefully to see what I've got wrong. -- Nick http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob