From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30496 invoked by alias); 28 Aug 2002 23:58:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 30488 invoked from network); 28 Aug 2002 23:58:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 28 Aug 2002 23:58:06 -0000 Received: from ges.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5015B3F0F; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 19:58:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3D6D638D.8030403@ges.redhat.com> Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 17:02:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020824 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Carlton Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [David Carlton ] Re: [RFA] dwarf2read.c: set TYPE_DOMAIN_TYPE correctly for methods References: <20020828224247.GA27335@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00961.txt.bz2 > On Wed, 28 Aug 2002 18:42:47 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz said: > > >>> + /* NOTE: carlton/2002-08-22: Previously, the second argument to >>> + smash_to_method_type was die->type rather than type, and the >>> + type argument to dwarf2_add_member_fn didn't exst. This is >>> + incorrect: the second argument to smash_to_method_type should >>> + be the type of the class that this is a method of, whereas >>> + die->type is the type of the method itself. So we need to >>> + pass that type in from read_structure_scope explicitly. See >>> + PR gdb/653. */ > > >> I'd rather a comment like: >> /* TYPE is the domain of this method, and DIE->TYPE is the type >> of the method itself (TYPE_CODE_METHOD). */ > > >> There's no point in cluttering up the code with history of this sort >> unless you have low confidence in the change's effect on some odd >> corner-case. That's just my personal judgement, though. > > > I agree. I'd originally put in the excessively verbose comment > because Andrew complained about my putting too much information in the > ChangeLog instead of a comment, but I think that your version of the > comment is better. > > >> If you agree, mind committing it with that or a similar change? > > > Great, will do (unless Andrew complains about the new version of the > comment). Doesn't worry me. Andrew