From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15497 invoked by alias); 5 Dec 2003 17:16:17 -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 15483 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2003 17:16:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 5 Dec 2003 17:16:16 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.24 #1 (Debian)) id 1ASJYu-0007FE-Bh for ; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 12:16:16 -0500 Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 17:16:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa/c++] cp_lookup_rtti_type, take 2 Message-ID: <20031205171616.GA27834@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20031201214039.7A1504B364@berman.michael-chastain.com> <20031205032959.GA13165@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-12/txt/msg00213.txt.bz2 On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 08:57:56AM -0800, David Carlton wrote: > On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 22:29:59 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz said: > > On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 04:40:39PM -0500, Michael Chastain wrote: > > >> . The calls to lookup_rtti_type need a proper "block" parameter. > >> The old code needed this too; I haven't regressed anything. > >> I put FIXME notes in for this. > > > I'm not as sure as you are about this - certainly we do _not_ want a > > block that came down the call chain; think about what dynamic type > > is. > > Good point. Oops. > > > Ignoring anonymous namespaces for now.) > > Yes... > > > Now that we've had another major release of GDB I am extremely > > tempted to rip out aCC C++ support. > > You'll get no complaints from me. > > >> . Nested types give a warning and don't work. > >> It would be nice to make them work. > > > It's a pain. I spent quite some time trying to sort out the issues. > > I'll give it a shot again after more of David's patches have been > > merged. > > I think they should work okay after my patch that is waiting for > approval gets applied? Perhaps. I was working with stabs at the time. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer