From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 870 invoked by alias); 19 Jan 2004 17:31:23 -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 827 invoked from network); 19 Jan 2004 17:31:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO external2.doc.com) (199.72.38.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Jan 2004 17:31:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 20459 invoked from network); 19 Jan 2004 17:31:20 -0000 Received: from cpe-24-221-209-215.co.sprintbbd.net (HELO doc.com) (24.221.209.215) by external2.doc.com with SMTP; 19 Jan 2004 17:31:20 -0000 Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 17:31:00 -0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix some 64-bit Objective-C bugs Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v553) Cc: Ulrich Weigand , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, uweigand@de.ibm.com To: Daniel Jacobowitz From: Adam Fedor In-Reply-To: <20040119163252.GC9812@nevyn.them.org> Message-Id: <4AA3687E-4AA5-11D8-BD86-000A277AC1A4@doc.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg00506.txt.bz2 On Monday, January 19, 2004, at 09:32 AM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 10:45:52AM -0700, Adam Fedor wrote: >> >> On Thursday, December 4, 2003, at 01:10 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> ChangeLog: >>> >>> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 * eval.c (evaluate_subexp_standard, case OP_OBJC_= MSGCALL):=20 >>> Use >>> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 CORE_ADDR as type for selectors.=A0 Correct types= for GNU run >>> time >>> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 message lookup function to use double indirection. >>> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 * objc-lang.c (lookup_child_selector): Use CORE_A= DDR as=20 >>> return >>> type. >>> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 * objc-lang.h (lookup_child_selector): Adapt prot= otype. >>> >> >> Looks good to me. It also happens to fix a problem I was just getting >> around to looking at. I'll apply it in a few days if there are no=20 >> other >> comments. Thanks for taking the time to look at this. > > Hi Adam, > > Just reminding you that you never checked in this patch. > > Andrew told me to wait on this as Ulrich needed to send in an=20 assignment. I don't think that has been done yet (at least it hasn't=20 been processed).