From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14682 invoked by alias); 2 Nov 2012 20:52:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 14674 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Nov 2012 20:52:21 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_SPAMHAUS_DROP,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; Fri, 02 Nov 2012 20:52:11 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qA2KqBW9012708 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 16:52:11 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qA2Kq9Kx002318 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 2 Nov 2012 16:52:10 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] class-local typedef substitutions References: <87vcfphdl8.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <87sjabrx4g.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <5091795B.7020506@redhat.com> <87hap9qbqm.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 20:52:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <87hap9qbqm.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> (Tom Tromey's message of "Thu, 01 Nov 2012 15:01:05 -0600") Message-ID: <87a9uzohhi.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/msg00071.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Tom" == Tom Tromey writes: Pedro> I'm confused and curious at why such a change would be necessary. I Pedro> couldn't find it from a quick look over the patch. Pedro> Can you expand a little? Does this also affect the CLI? Tom> It has been a while, but I think the difference depends on whether the Tom> type name is sent through canonicalization or not. Yes, it is due to C++ name canonicalization. It may be possible to avoid this in some cases, but I can't think of a situation where the current approach would make the output worse. It does affect the CLI in some cases, but I see now that I missed the 'default' case in c_type_print_base. I will update that and see what happens. Pedro> Why expect both long and "long int"? Is this compiler / debug format Pedro> dependent, perhaps? Tom> I will take another look and figure it out. I think it is safe to just expect "long". I'll change the patch. Tom