From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12263 invoked by alias); 7 Mar 2012 19:29:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 12254 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Mar 2012 19:29:19 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 07 Mar 2012 19:29:07 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q27JSj68013485 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 7 Mar 2012 14:28:45 -0500 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-19.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.19]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q27JSfui019822 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 7 Mar 2012 14:28:44 -0500 Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 19:29:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Doug Evans Cc: Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] typedef-checking for CU relative vs. absolute offsets [Re: RFC: problem with DW_OP_GNU_deref_type and dwarf's get_base_type callback] Message-ID: <20120307192840.GA32200@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20120305223429.GM2867@adacore.com> <20120307170940.GA22619@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120307171249.GB22619@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120307190936.GA30591@host2.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120307190936.GA30591@host2.jankratochvil.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) 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: 2012-03/txt/msg00242.txt.bz2 On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 20:09:36 +0100, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > I find the other possibility some static checker instead, And sure the third one C++ again. Regards, Jan