Re: [PATCH] Unary plus

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 10:50:53AM +0000, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> >Two comments:
> >
> >- Could you add a non-tracepoint testcase for this?  I think one good
> >place would be gdb.cp/userdef.exp.
> done. As this overloads operator+, I introduced a new class for
> the breakpoint test.
> 
> 
> >>!   if (TYPE_CODE (type) == TYPE_CODE_FLT)
> >>!     return arg1;
> >
> >
> >- IIUC, that's not quite right - we need an rvalue here.
> 
> Like this?
> 
> built and tested on i686-pc-linux-gnu, ok?

OK.  This comment isn't quite right after the rvalue fix:

> ! /* The unary operators - and ~.  Both free the argument ARG1.  */
>   
>   struct value *
>   value_neg (struct value *arg1)
> --- 1316,1350 ----
>       }
>   }
>   \f
> ! /* The unary operators +, - and ~.  They free the argument ARG1
> !    (unless it is returned).  */


-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC