From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25165 invoked by alias); 30 Nov 2001 06:41:29 -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 24826 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2001 06:40:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (128.2.145.6) by hostedprojects.ges.redhat.com with SMTP; 30 Nov 2001 06:40:11 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian)) id 169hLf-0007qh-00; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 01:40:35 -0500 Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 13:03:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Jim Blandy Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA/c++] Fix printing classes with virtual base classes Message-ID: <20011130014034.A29999@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Jim Blandy , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20011126201945.A27754@nevyn.them.org> <20011127020634.A10010@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/msg00386.txt.bz2 Jim, can I commit these? It'll make it easier for me to post the following batch. Now that GCC emits the information I need (on HEAD at least) I'd like to finish this up. I guess that I can commit the gnu-v3-abi bits on my own initiative, since no one objected... actually, I guess the values stuff is unmaintained too? MAINTAINERS says: If there is no maintainer for a given domain then the responsibility falls to the head maintainer. So I guess I need approval from one of Ye Divine Entities first. [Would someone more familiar with the state of affairs than I explicitly list the unmaintained parts in MAINTAINERS? Quite a few things seem to have slipped down that path.] On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 04:17:51PM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote: > > These are two independent fixes, right? I understand GDB may need > them both before it works correctly; I'm asking if each of them is a > correct change in its own right. If so, could you show me a test case > that each change fixes? > > Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > > 2001-11-26 Daniel Jacobowitz > > > > * values.c (value_primitive_field): Add embedded_offset to the > > address of structure members. > > * gnu-v3-abi.c (gnuv3_rtti_type): Cast to base type before > > attempting to access vtable pointer. Set using_enc_p if we cast. > > (gnuv3_virtual_fn_field): Call value_cast with structure rather than > > structure pointer. Cast to base type before attempting to access > > vtable pointer. > -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Jim Blandy Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA/c++] Fix printing classes with virtual base classes Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 22:41:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20011130014034.A29999@nevyn.them.org> References: <20011126201945.A27754@nevyn.them.org> <20011127020634.A10010@nevyn.them.org> X-SW-Source: 2001-11/msg00601.html Message-ID: <20011129224100.-bobZuO3SuBeJZv39xOc0ZpfAClfUBDLmHt5KeNFlwk@z> Jim, can I commit these? It'll make it easier for me to post the following batch. Now that GCC emits the information I need (on HEAD at least) I'd like to finish this up. I guess that I can commit the gnu-v3-abi bits on my own initiative, since no one objected... actually, I guess the values stuff is unmaintained too? MAINTAINERS says: If there is no maintainer for a given domain then the responsibility falls to the head maintainer. So I guess I need approval from one of Ye Divine Entities first. [Would someone more familiar with the state of affairs than I explicitly list the unmaintained parts in MAINTAINERS? Quite a few things seem to have slipped down that path.] On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 04:17:51PM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote: > > These are two independent fixes, right? I understand GDB may need > them both before it works correctly; I'm asking if each of them is a > correct change in its own right. If so, could you show me a test case > that each change fixes? > > Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > > 2001-11-26 Daniel Jacobowitz > > > > * values.c (value_primitive_field): Add embedded_offset to the > > address of structure members. > > * gnu-v3-abi.c (gnuv3_rtti_type): Cast to base type before > > attempting to access vtable pointer. Set using_enc_p if we cast. > > (gnuv3_virtual_fn_field): Call value_cast with structure rather than > > structure pointer. Cast to base type before attempting to access > > vtable pointer. > -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer