From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15848 invoked by alias); 27 Mar 2009 02:22:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 15718 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Mar 2009 02:22:00 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 02:21:53 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A416107FA; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 02:21:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0CEC107CF; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 02:21:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ln1he-0007ac-Du; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 22:21:50 -0400 Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 02:35:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Keith Seitz Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Special casing dtors? Message-ID: <20090327022150.GC29050@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Keith Seitz , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <49CAB139.8010100@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49CAB139.8010100@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) 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: 2009-03/txt/msg00610.txt.bz2 On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 03:33:29PM -0700, Keith Seitz wrote: > Hi, > > I've been looking a bit at a patch (in Fedora) which fixes prms/1112, and > I notice that both valops.c and linespec.c treat destructors as "special > case"s -- but nowhere does it say WHY. > > I've searched through all the history I can find about this (including > the Cygnus internal ueberbaum), and all I've been able to discover is > that this has been in a LONG time (before 1990). > > So out of curiosity, I removed all those special cases, and lo! There > were no new failures, and one new pass in the testsuite (on x86, CVS > HEAD). > > Can anyone explain to me either why gdb treats dtors differently from > "normal" methods or why we shouldn't commit something like the attached > patch? I remember, about five years ago, doing some serious surgery on the way the stabs reader reported constructors and destructors. If I had to guess, I'd say this code was needed before that and/or for GCC 2.x. But 2.x is pretty scarce on the ground nowadays anyway. Either that, or something for HP aCC. Anyway, good riddance if your patch works! What's the new PASS? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery