From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30620 invoked by alias); 17 May 2007 16:27:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 30608 invoked by uid 22791); 17 May 2007 16:27:45 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from return.false.org (HELO return.false.org) (66.207.162.98) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 17 May 2007 16:27:40 +0000 Received: from return.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by return.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71AAC4B267; Thu, 17 May 2007 11:27:38 -0500 (CDT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (dsl093-172-095.pit1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.93.172.95]) by return.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DB354B262; Thu, 17 May 2007 11:27:38 -0500 (CDT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1HoipF-0007gn-DO; Thu, 17 May 2007 12:27:37 -0400 Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 16:27:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] wrong pointer type length Message-ID: <20070517162737.GA29527@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20070517161919.GA508@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070517161919.GA508@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-05/txt/msg00293.txt.bz2 On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 09:19:19AM -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote: > 2007-05-16 Joel Brobecker > > * gdbtypes.c (make_pointer_type): Preserve the pointer type chain > and set the length of all the variants of the pointer type. > > Tested on x86-linux and ppc-aix, no regressions. OK to commit? OK, I suppose. > As a followup to this patch, I think that the same needs to be done > for at least make_reference_type, but I don't have hard evidence that > this will ever be needed right now. If it is agreed that this function > also needs an update, it can be made independently in a followup patch. Yes please. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery