From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9104 invoked by alias); 22 Nov 2012 02:20:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 9095 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Nov 2012 02:20:52 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 02:20:43 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qAM2Kgmi027799 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 21:20:43 -0500 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qAM2KfQr030647 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 21 Nov 2012 21:20:42 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: fix PR c++/8888 References: <87boeqlk45.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 02:20:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <87boeqlk45.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> (Tom Tromey's message of "Wed, 21 Nov 2012 14:30:18 -0700") Message-ID: <871ufml6o6.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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: 2012-11/txt/msg00591.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Tom" == Tom Tromey writes: Tom> After investigating the problem for a while, I couldn't find a bad Tom> situation here other than the constructor problem. So, I made the fix Tom> specific to this case. ... and of course, thought of one later: the name of a superclass constructor will also cause the same failure. I'll look at this next week. Tom