From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15515 invoked by alias); 13 Nov 2002 15:45:19 -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 15505 invoked from network); 13 Nov 2002 15:45:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cerbere.u-strasbg.fr) (130.79.112.250) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 Nov 2002 15:45:17 -0000 Received: from laocoon.ics.u-strasbg.fr (laocoon.u-strasbg.fr [130.79.112.72]) by cerbere.u-strasbg.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE46412; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 16:58:37 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20021113164316.02f81288@ics.u-strasbg.fr> X-Sender: muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 07:45:00 -0000 To: Andrew Cagney From: Pierre Muller Subject: Re: [PATCH] Correct pascal parser problem. Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: <3DD26E76.2070607@redhat.com> References: <5.0.2.1.2.20021113101533.00b01c48@ics.u-strasbg.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00363.txt.bz2 At 16:23 13/11/2002, Andrew Cagney wrote: >>At 10:12 13/11/2002, you wrote: >> >>> The following patch fixes a problem when parsing expressions that started with fields of this. >>> >>> If you where in a method that have a filed named owner >>>that is a pointer, >>>(gdb) p owner >>>$1 = (PSYMTABLE) $507a48 >>>(gdb) p owner^ >>>Type TNAMEDINDEXOBJECT has no component named OWNER^. >>> >>>The problem was that lookup_struct_elt_type >>>was call with 'OWNER^' instead of only 'OWNER'. >>> >>>After that patch, I get this: >>>(gdb) p owner >>>$3 = (PSYMTABLE) $507a48 >>>(gdb) p owner^ >>>$4 = {NAME = $0, DATASIZE = 0, DATAALIGNMENT = 2, SYMINDEX = $507a78, >>> DEFINDEX = $507a98, SYMSEARCH = $507ab8, NEXT = $5075f8, DEFOWNER = $507ad8, >>> ADDRESS_FIXUP = 0, UNITID = 0, SYMTABLELEVEL = 0, >>> SYMTABLETYPE = RECORDSYMTABLE, _vptr$ = {$4eb2c8, $1}} >>>which is much better. >> >>Can I also commit this to 5.3 branch or is it too late? > >No, it isn't too late. Still plenty of HIGH priority bug reports (where GDB doesn't build :-( ). OK, thus I also committed this to 5.3 branch.