From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28400 invoked by alias); 15 Mar 2004 19:26:35 -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 28343 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2004 19:26:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (66.30.197.194) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 Mar 2004 19:26:32 -0000 Received: by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 469) id D26061A448A; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 14:20:13 -0500 (EST) From: Elena Zannoni MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16470.493.253043.158843@localhost.redhat.com> Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 00:09:00 -0000 To: David Carlton Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Elena Zannoni , Jim Blandy , Daniel Jacobowitz Subject: Re: [rfa+6.1]: Revised patch for PR c++/1553 In-Reply-To: References: X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00323.txt.bz2 Message-ID: <20040319000900.hL_2z_yY_NIvGNLzf6_XJ7oZSGcTsWS_E8pJKWZeBLk@z> David Carlton writes: > Here's a revision for my patch for PR c++/1553 that I posted a couple > of weeks ago. The stuff that was in that patch hasn't changed (except > for syncing it up with current sources), but this version also > includes changes to determine_prefix. Specifically, it fixes a bug in > that code that Daniel pointed out, and it rewrites determine_prefix to > use my new determine_class_name function (so that all the class name > lookup stuff is in one place) and to look at TYPE_TAG_NAME (to avoid > recalculating the same name over and over again if possible). > > The determine_prefix stuff could be a separate patch from my earlier > changes; I just wanted to get it submitted now because it's possible > that there will be a hiccup in my copyright assignment. Also, it > seems like a good idea to get patches into 6.1 as early as possible, > to increase the amount of testing that they'll get. > > I couldn't come up with any test cases for the new part of the patch; > it depends very much on how the compiler is generating output. :-( > > Tested on i686-pc-linux-gnu, DWARF-2, several different GCC versions. > Ok for mainline and 6.1? > seems ok, however I wasn't able to apply it cleanly. Also, there are a couple of C++ style comments that should go. elena