From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27457 invoked by alias); 7 Jun 2011 16:58:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 27444 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Jun 2011 16:58:44 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 16:58:31 +0000 Received: (qmail 11751 invoked from network); 7 Jun 2011 16:58:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO scottsdale.localnet) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 7 Jun 2011 16:58:30 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: Jan Kratochvil Subject: Re: [patch] physname regression: Non-matching type false breakpoint Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 16:58:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.38-8-generic; KDE/4.6.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20110605153419.GA14873@host1.jankratochvil.net> <201106061021.30546.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20110606211943.GA9362@host1.jankratochvil.net> In-Reply-To: <20110606211943.GA9362@host1.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201106071758.28138.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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: 2011-06/txt/msg00097.txt.bz2 On Monday 06 June 2011 22:19:43, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 11:21:30 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote: > > I have trouble parsing this sentence. > > I agree the original sentence by me was bogus. > > > > + /* If we found a single field with that name, and we were not given > > + a specific overload instance in COPY, accept the field, if it's > > + really a method. */ > > + if (i1 == 1 && strchr (copy, '(') == NULL) > > The point was IMO not when to accept the field but rather when to reject it > - that an additional comparison is needed. Adjusted the text. That justifies the patch/change, but looking at the resulting code, it looked to me a bit better to justify when can the i1 == 1 special case be applied (the code directly under the comment). Anyway, glass half full vs glass half empty. :-) Your version is fine with me. > - if (i1 == 1) > + /* If we were given a specific overload instance in COPY defer the field > + acceptance till the strcmp_iw verification below even if we found just > + a single field with that name. */ I suggest a comma after "COPY", and another after "below". -- Pedro Alves