From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 98763 invoked by alias); 23 Jun 2015 19:53:51 -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 98752 invoked by uid 89); 23 Jun 2015 19:53:50 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_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 (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 19:53:50 +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 (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 210BCB7CE5; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 19:53:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from host1.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-41.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.41]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t5NJrjet030193 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 23 Jun 2015 15:53:47 -0400 Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 19:53:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Keith Seitz Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, dje@google.com Subject: Re: [RFC] Revisit PR 16253 ("Attempt to use a type name...") Message-ID: <20150623195344.GA376@host1.jankratochvil.net> References: <1434049038-7891-1-git-send-email-keiths@redhat.com> <20150617123357.GA12138@host1.jankratochvil.net> <5581972B.3020200@redhat.com> <5589A7F8.7080406@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5589A7F8.7080406@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-06/txt/msg00503.txt.bz2 On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 20:39:52 +0200, Keith Seitz wrote: > [But then my philosophy is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." As far as > I can tell, block_lookup_symbol is not "broke."] I agree, just I think a proper fix would cover also block_lookup_symbol(). But then it is questionable what is a proper fix as after this fix the C++ expression support still remains poor. The proper GDB fix is C++ 'compile' support being worked on. Jan