From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13410 invoked by alias); 2 Apr 2009 16:32:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 12753 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Apr 2009 16:32:01 -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; Thu, 02 Apr 2009 16:31:51 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C9D710A5E; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 16:31:49 +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 06F1C104E1; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 16:31:49 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LpPpU-0007nd-9N; Thu, 02 Apr 2009 12:31:48 -0400 Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 16:32:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Keith Seitz Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Special casing dtors? Message-ID: <20090402163148.GA29877@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Keith Seitz , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <49CAB139.8010100@redhat.com> <49CD2F0F.8040203@redhat.com> <49CDD4C1.1080306@redhat.com> <200903301658.16807.pedro@codesourcery.com> <49D3FCC9.7090505@redhat.com> <20090402031706.GA16898@caradoc.them.org> <49D4E6FE.1070506@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49D4E6FE.1070506@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: 2009-04/txt/msg00038.txt.bz2 On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 09:25:34AM -0700, Keith Seitz wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 04:46:17PM -0700, Keith Seitz wrote: > >> I don't understand the patch - would you mind posting affected stabs >> from 4.2 and HEAD? Sounds like GCC made the incompatible change here, >> not GDB. > > Stabs attached. > > Gcc did make the change, but as Pedro pointed out in a previous note, > "GDB has to cope with code produced from older compilers as well." Since > 4.2.0 and 4.2.4 are long out the door, I was simply attempting to > accommodating. IIUC GCC replaced "__base_ctor" with "__base_ctor " at some point. Assuming I've got that right, this patch is fine - please go ahead. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery