From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14758 invoked by alias); 25 Apr 2003 00:29:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 14751 invoked from network); 25 Apr 2003 00:29:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 Apr 2003 00:29:44 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 198r6F-0001PC-00; Thu, 24 Apr 2003 19:30:00 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 198r5y-0002U4-00; Thu, 24 Apr 2003 20:29:42 -0400 Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 02:15:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Keith Seitz Cc: Andrew Cagney , "gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com" Subject: Re: [RFA] varobj: call CHECK_TYPEDEF Message-ID: <20030425002942.GB9492@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Keith Seitz , Andrew Cagney , "gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com" References: <1051215397.1538.43.camel@lindt.uglyboxes.com> <3EA84A9B.5020308@redhat.com> <1051221433.1534.72.camel@lindt.uglyboxes.com> <3EA8629B.50603@redhat.com> <1051223376.1538.74.camel@lindt.uglyboxes.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1051223376.1538.74.camel@lindt.uglyboxes.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00482.txt.bz2 On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 03:29:36PM -0700, Keith Seitz wrote: > On Thu, 2003-04-24 at 15:18, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > BTW, does ... > > > > struct t > > { > > int a; > > int b; > > }; > > > > typedef struct t T; > > > > main() > > { > > static T v = {...}; > > } > > > > tickle it? > > Nope, that works properly (except for it being reported as "struct t" > instead of "T"). [Keith, you had "test for insight/792" in your posted testsuite patch.] There's at least one compiler bug in this area, where DWARF-2 debug info will say struct t instead of T. I fixed it for 3.3 and (I think?) 3.2.3. Just in case you start getting confused :) -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer