Ping on Objc patches

Ping on Objc patches

[Adam Fedor]

I'm just wondering about four patches for Objective-C I've submitted 
over four weeks ago. Most of them are borderline obvious (one was 
requested) so it doesn't seem like it should take to much to look them over.


Handle ObjC ops in expprint.c
   http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-10/msg00328.html

Add ObjC struct to parser-defs.h
   http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-10/msg00327.html

Rename ObjC ops.
   http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-10/msg00449.html

Add Objc Rules.
   http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-10/msg00120.html



-- 
Adam Fedor, Digital Optics Corp.      | I'm glad I hate spinach, because
http://www.doc.com                    | if I didn't, I'd eat it, and you
                                       | know how I hate the stuff.

Re: Ping on Objc patches

[Michael Snyder]

Adam Fedor wrote:
> 
> I'm just wondering about four patches for Objective-C I've submitted
> over four weeks ago. Most of them are borderline obvious (one was
> requested) so it doesn't seem like it should take to much to look them over.
> 
> Handle ObjC ops in expprint.c
>    http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-10/msg00328.html

Approved (provided you change OP_NSSTRING to OP_OBJC_NSSTRING etc.)

> Add ObjC struct to parser-defs.h
>    http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-10/msg00327.html

Approved

> Rename ObjC ops.
>    http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-10/msg00449.html

Approved

> Add Objc Rules.
>    http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-10/msg00120.html

What was the outcome of the discussion about this?
Weren't we going to wait until most or all of the rest of the
objc changes were in?

Michael

Re: Ping on Objc patches

[Andrew Cagney]

> Add Objc Rules.
>>    http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-10/msg00120.html
> 
> 
> What was the outcome of the discussion about this?
> Weren't we going to wait until most or all of the rest of the
> objc changes were in?

The only Makefile.in change that really matters is the one that adds the 
.o files to the build list - without that, nothing is built.

So this is ok.

Andrew

Re: Ping on Objc patches

[Adam Fedor]

On Monday, November 18, 2002, at 11:58 AM, Michael Snyder wrote:
>
> What was the outcome of the discussion about this?
> Weren't we going to wait until most or all of the rest of the
> objc changes were in?
>
>
Two things: One is that it's hard to see if changes to the ObjC files 
are working if you can't compile them.
Second is, some people expressed reservations about combining c-exp.y 
and objc-exp.y, so I'd like to at least get something working 
(eventually) until we are done arguing about that.

Re: Ping on ObjC Patches

[Adam Fedor]

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
 > On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 04:13:06PM -0800, Michael Snyder wrote:
 > > > And,
 > > > Add expected type to hand_function_call (only a week or so old)
 > > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-12/msg00320.html
 > >
 > > If I recall, isn't there some controversy about this one?
 >
 > Adam, does ObjC actually need this patch, or was it only used by the
 > expected-type syntax change that Klee posted about?  We never came to a
 > consensus about that.

After reading Klee's patch, I'd have to say that, no, it's not necessary 
for ObjC, anymore than it would be for C. however, I think it is much 
more relavent for ObjC, since it is even harder to cast an ObjC method 
than it is to cast a C function. For one thing, every ObjC method 
contains two hidden arguments. If you're good at ObjC, you know that, 
but even so, it's an awful lot of work to do that rather than just cast 
the return type.

So it goes back to the merits of Klee's original patch, though it's much 
more useful with ObjC.

-- 
Adam Fedor, Digital Optics Corp.      | I'm glad I hate spinach, because
http://www.doc.com                    | if I didn't, I'd eat it, and you
                                       | know how I hate the stuff.

Re: Ping on ObjC Patches

[Adam Fedor]

Michael Snyder wrote:
>>And,
>>Add expected type to hand_function_call (only a week or so old)
>>http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-12/msg00320.html
> 
> 
> If I recall, isn't there some controversy about this one?

If there is, no one has told me  and there is nothing on the list about it.

Re: Ping on ObjC Patches

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 04:13:06PM -0800, Michael Snyder wrote:
> Adam Fedor wrote:
> > 
> > I'm just wondering if anyone would like to approve :-)
> > 
> > Switch to demandle ObjC symbols in maint.c (about a month old)
> > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-11/msg00488.html
> 
> Approved.
> 
> > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-11/msg00489.html
> 
> I don't think Fernando will mind if I approve this.
> 
> > And,
> > Add expected type to hand_function_call (only a week or so old)
> > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-12/msg00320.html
> 
> If I recall, isn't there some controversy about this one?

Adam, does ObjC actually need this patch, or was it only used by the
expected-type syntax change that Klee posted about?  We never came to a
consensus about that.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

Re: Ping on ObjC Patches

[Michael Snyder]

Adam Fedor wrote:
> 
> I'm just wondering if anyone would like to approve :-)
> 
> Switch to demandle ObjC symbols in maint.c (about a month old)
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-11/msg00488.html

Approved.

> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-11/msg00489.html

I don't think Fernando will mind if I approve this.

> And,
> Add expected type to hand_function_call (only a week or so old)
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-12/msg00320.html

If I recall, isn't there some controversy about this one?

Ping on ObjC Patches

[Adam Fedor]

I'm just wondering if anyone would like to approve :-)

Switch to demandle ObjC symbols in maint.c (about a month old)
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-11/msg00488.html
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-11/msg00489.html


And,
Add expected type to hand_function_call (only a week or so old)
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-12/msg00320.html