From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19134 invoked by alias); 4 Apr 2006 13:45:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 19126 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Apr 2006 13:45:11 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from zigzag.lvk.cs.msu.su (HELO zigzag.lvk.cs.msu.su) (158.250.17.23) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 04 Apr 2006 13:45:09 +0000 Received: from Debian-exim by zigzag.lvk.cs.msu.su with spam-scanned (Exim 4.50) id 1FQlq6-0001Yf-9G for gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com; Tue, 04 Apr 2006 17:45:03 +0400 Received: from zigzag.lvk.cs.msu.su ([158.250.17.23]) by zigzag.lvk.cs.msu.su with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1FQlpl-0001T6-Dn; Tue, 04 Apr 2006 17:44:37 +0400 From: Vladimir Prus To: Daniel Jacobowitz Subject: Re: Add -var-info-path-expression command Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 13:45:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.2 Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20060404132621.GA380@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20060404132621.GA380@nevyn.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200604041744.37005.ghost@cs.msu.su> Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-04/txt/msg00029.txt.bz2 On Tuesday 04 April 2006 17:26, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 11:22:02AM +0400, Vladimir Prus wrote: > > Any comments on this yet? I believe we've discussed the rationale for > > -var-info-path-expression command in the main list, and agreed that it's > > necessary. > > Yes, I think we've agreed on that. > > It would be nice if there were test cases and documentation to go with > this. Is this a hard requirement? > I've been putting off looking at this patch, because (A) I had a whole > lot of other patches to review, and (B) it's huge and gnarly. I am not > really sure that Apple took the right approach with C++ classes and > run-time type information. Maybe they did, but it's not at all > obvious. FWIW, I'm not 100% understand what they did, but this does not matter. My patch does some surgery to grab only -var-info-path-expression, and no type/RTTI related changes. - Volodya