From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-38358-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 8795 invoked by alias); 8 Mar 2005 13:40:18 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 8561 invoked from network); 8 Mar 2005 13:39:59 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 8 Mar 2005 13:39:59 -0000
Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.44 #1 (Debian))
	id 1D8ewJ-00020g-0f; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 08:39:59 -0500
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 13:40:00 -0000
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
To: Nathan Sidwell <nathan@codesourcery.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Unary plus
Message-ID: <20050308133958.GC7417@nevyn.them.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Nathan Sidwell <nathan@codesourcery.com>,
	gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
References: <4209E2F1.2000504@codesourcery.com> <20050227003608.GC19138@nevyn.them.org> <422D838D.3090108@codesourcery.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <422D838D.3090108@codesourcery.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i
X-SW-Source: 2005-03/txt/msg00121.txt.bz2

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 ----
>       }
>   }
>   
> ! /* The unary operators +, - and ~.  They free the argument ARG1
> !    (unless it is returned).  */


-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC