From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18649 invoked by alias); 24 Sep 2010 16:14:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 18627 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Sep 2010 16:14:43 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 16:14:39 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE56C20086D; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 12:14:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id InXVHXcbi0kO; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 12:14:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67E34200860; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 12:14:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7CBF3F591E; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 09:14:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 23:00:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Jan Kratochvil , Ken Werner Subject: Re: [patch] const array types Message-ID: <20100924161432.GG3007@adacore.com> References: <201009151920.37105.ken@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20100923223709.GA25145@host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20100924144234.GF3007@adacore.com> <201009241638.27072.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201009241638.27072.pedro@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2010-09/txt/msg00440.txt.bz2 > I disagree: I certainly understimated the consequences of this little distinction (I haven't used C++ 1994 or 1995)! > It looks sane to me to not emit a whole new struct type based on > struct S that includes a `const inst x' just for `b' (rather than > DW_TAG_const_type pointing at struct S). Is `a' really any different? I see you point. Perhaps this should be clarified at the DWARF level as well? > E.g., out of the blue, in C++ it can make the user call the > wrong function from gdb, when there are overloads > involved (, or templates, I guess): Ugh! -- Joel