From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
To: Wu Zhou <woodzltc@cn.ibm.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: Removing TYPE_VPTR_FIELDNO uses (was: Re: [patch ping] Set TYPE_VPTR_BASETYPE/TYPE_VPTR_FIELDNO of XL C++ virtual class)
Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 20:09:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20051009200931.GC7107@nevyn.them.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0510091140320.4391@linux.site>
On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 12:02:16PM +0800, Wu Zhou wrote:
> > > - gdbtypes.c/gdbtype.h: to initialize VPTR_FIELDNO (in alloc_type and
> > > create_array_type), fill VPTRs (in fill_in_vptr_fieldno), and dump VPTRs
> > > (in recursive_dump_type). Maybe some change to the type dumping is
> > > needed.
> >
> > Not if we leave them for older ABIs and stabs.
>
> Maybe we need to add some code to dump VPTRs for gnu-v3 ABI after removing
> TYPE_VPTR_FIELDNO?
I wouldn't even bother unless you need it for debugging; this code
doesn't see much use lately.
> > > - eval.c (evaluate_subexp_standard): TYPE_VPTR_BASETYPE is used to iterate
> > > the baseclasses to find the real address of the virtual function.
> >
> > This code needs to be (A) read and thought about, so that we can figure
> > out what it used to do, and (B) replaced with something less broken.
> > It hasn't worked in forever. Take a look at what METHOD_PTR_IS_VIRTUAL
> > expands to!
>
> It seems that the definition for METHOD_PTR_IS_VIRTUAL is at least error
> for 64-bit arch. Seen from the changelogs I found it was introduced in
> gdb since 1992. Will this still stands after more than ten years?
>
> #define METHOD_PTR_IS_VIRTUAL(ADDR) ((ADDR) & 0x80000000)
>
> Didn't all these different compilers reached an agreement on how to
> predicate a pointer-to-method is virtual?
I don't know what the v3 ABI does for this; but it certainly does not
do it that way.
> > Unless of course there isn't one. We may need to figure out what the
> > field at offset 0 is to see whether it's a vptr or a user variable. I
> > haven't thought about that in a while; maybe we can assume that there
> > is one by the time we get into this file.
>
> Do you have any clues on how to determine whether this assumption stands?
I don't know, I'm afraid; some experimentation is in order.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-10-09 20:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-09-29 4:53 [patch ping] Set TYPE_VPTR_BASETYPE/TYPE_VPTR_FIELDNO of XL C++ virtual class Wu Zhou
2005-10-02 22:21 ` Removing TYPE_VPTR_FIELDNO uses (was: Re: [patch ping] Set TYPE_VPTR_BASETYPE/TYPE_VPTR_FIELDNO of XL C++ virtual class) Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-10-09 3:58 ` Wu Zhou
2005-10-09 20:09 ` Daniel Jacobowitz [this message]
2005-10-11 5:49 ` Wu Zhou
2005-10-11 13:16 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20051009200931.GC7107@nevyn.them.org \
--to=drow@false.org \
--cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
--cc=woodzltc@cn.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox