From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA/c++] Fix printing classes with virtual base classes Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 07:45:00 -0000 Message-id: <20011127104612.B1939@nevyn.them.org> References: <20011126201945.A27754@nevyn.them.org> <20011127003659.A3965@nevyn.them.org> X-SW-Source: 2001-11/msg00497.html On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 10:16:56AM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 11:39:34PM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote: > > > > > > I'm with you on VALUE_OFFSET and VALUE_EMBEDDED_OFFSET. I'm pretty > > > sure VALUE_OFFSET can be eliminated from GDB entirely, with some minor > > > changes to the representation of subvalues of registers and > > > convenience variables. > > > > I am exceedingly tempted to do this. > > Yeah, wouldn't it be nice if VALUE_ADDRESS returned, oh, say, the > value's address? For register and convenience variable subvalues, use > the value's address field instead of the offset field. I'm pretty > sure VALUE_OFFSET goes away entirely then. If I get a little spare time, or adequately frustrated with vtables, I'm going to try for this. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5562 invoked by alias); 27 Nov 2001 15:45:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 5509 invoked from network); 27 Nov 2001 15:45:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (128.2.145.6) by hostedprojects.ges.redhat.com with SMTP; 27 Nov 2001 15:45:52 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian)) id 168kR2-0000aD-00 for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 10:46:12 -0500 Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 13:55:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA/c++] Fix printing classes with virtual base classes Message-ID: <20011127104612.B1939@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20011126201945.A27754@nevyn.them.org> <20011127003659.A3965@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-SW-Source: 2001-11/txt/msg00282.txt.bz2 Message-ID: <20011114135500.NRP1VxeJc6gP4KjS6K0KtHKDexLbqYGbMKi0rCr604c@z> On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 10:16:56AM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 11:39:34PM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote: > > > > > > I'm with you on VALUE_OFFSET and VALUE_EMBEDDED_OFFSET. I'm pretty > > > sure VALUE_OFFSET can be eliminated from GDB entirely, with some minor > > > changes to the representation of subvalues of registers and > > > convenience variables. > > > > I am exceedingly tempted to do this. > > Yeah, wouldn't it be nice if VALUE_ADDRESS returned, oh, say, the > value's address? For register and convenience variable subvalues, use > the value's address field instead of the offset field. I'm pretty > sure VALUE_OFFSET goes away entirely then. If I get a little spare time, or adequately frustrated with vtables, I'm going to try for this. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer