From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6232 invoked by alias); 19 Oct 2012 13:14:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 6221 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Oct 2012 13:14:25 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 13:14:19 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.93]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1TPCP2-0004FF-I8 from Luis_Gustavo@mentor.com ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 06:14:16 -0700 Received: from NA1-MAIL.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.181]) by svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 19 Oct 2012 06:14:16 -0700 Received: from [0.0.0.0] ([172.16.63.104]) by NA1-MAIL.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 19 Oct 2012 06:14:15 -0700 Message-ID: <50815220.7050209@codesourcery.com> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 13:14:00 -0000 From: Luis Machado Reply-To: lgustavo@codesourcery.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.28) Gecko/20120313 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.20 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Tromey CC: Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix mi "-var-create" regression References: <5075D4FD.9050900@mentor.com> <20121014171805.GB3050@adacore.com> <507BFF97.2000900@codesourcery.com> <87y5j4ziof.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <87y5j4ziof.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2012-10/txt/msg00347.txt.bz2 Hi Tom, On 10/17/2012 10:13 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Luis" == Luis Machado writes: > > Luis> + && TYPE_CODE (TYPE_TARGET_TYPE (result)) != TYPE_CODE_VOID) > > On further reflection, I have a question and a comment. > > First, perhaps instead of excluding void* here, we should only allow > pointers to structs. That is the only case that has RTTI anyhow. What > do you think? That sounds reasonable to me. > > Also, I think this needs a check_typedef around TYPE_TARGET_TYPE. > Probably. If the target type is deep into a typedef pile, we won't get this right. I'll have it fixed and will provide that testcase. Thanks! Luis