From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29176 invoked by alias); 14 Oct 2013 17:57:54 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 29167 invoked by uid 89); 14 Oct 2013 17:57:54 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 14 Oct 2013 17:57:53 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r9EHvpoi021771 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 14 Oct 2013 13:57:51 -0400 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-26.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.26]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r9EHvlkY025577 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 14 Oct 2013 13:57:49 -0400 Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 17:57:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Tom Tromey Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Jonathan Wakely Subject: Re: [patch] Support C++11 rvalue (move constructor) Message-ID: <20131014175747.GA9176@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20131012152836.GA9438@host2.jankratochvil.net> <87fvs33kb7.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87fvs33kb7.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-10/txt/msg00443.txt.bz2 On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 18:10:20 +0200, Tom Tromey wrote: > Jan> Therefore there is a KFAIL in the testcase for it. I do not think > Jan> GDB needs to handle && differently - except for displaying && > Jan> instead of &. > > Is that also true for inferior calls? > I didn't look. GDB cannot call constructors so this is irrelevant now. But it looks GCC really passes just a pointer (=like with lvalue reference). > Maybe the size increase isn't that important. I always thought the opposite is true. Due to CU expansion with after some completions one easily gets to 1GB GDB and more (but IMO this is a bug should not expand CUs). > Alternatively maybe it can be handled like qualifiers. Interesting idea but I would rather go some more clean way. > It seems reasonable to me -- an improvement, and not blocking any future > improvements. I will check it in in some days. Thanks, Jan