From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2949 invoked by alias); 17 May 2007 16:42:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 2928 invoked by uid 22791); 17 May 2007 16:42:17 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nile.gnat.com (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 17 May 2007 16:42:11 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDEC548D0A7 for ; Thu, 17 May 2007 12:42:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nile.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nile.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 29024-01-3 for ; Thu, 17 May 2007 12:42:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (unknown [70.71.0.212]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 266EC48D04A for ; Thu, 17 May 2007 12:39:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 18EADE7B4F; Thu, 17 May 2007 09:39:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 16:42:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] wrong pointer type length Message-ID: <20070517163951.GB508@adacore.com> References: <20070517161919.GA508@adacore.com> <20070517162737.GA29527@caradoc.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070517162737.GA29527@caradoc.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i 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/msg00294.txt.bz2 > > 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. That was fast! Thank you. This part has been checked in. > > 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. I'm working on the second part right now... -- Joel