From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29564 invoked by alias); 16 Oct 2007 16:16:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 29553 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Oct 2007 16:16:05 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from jess.glam.ac.uk (HELO jess.glam.ac.uk) (193.63.147.97) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 16 Oct 2007 16:16:01 +0000 Received: from j228-gm.comp.glam.ac.uk ([193.63.148.84]) by jess.glam.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1Ihp3z-0007Gp-00; Tue, 16 Oct 2007 17:14:35 +0100 Received: from gaius by j228-gm.comp.glam.ac.uk with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Ihp56-0003Lc-FR; Tue, 16 Oct 2007 17:15:44 +0100 To: Jim Blandy Cc: Eli Zaretskii , deuling@de.ibm.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Unbounded array support implemented (for Modula-2) References: <874pjs57zg.fsf@j228-gm.comp.glam.ac.uk> <46A847CE.7030907@de.ibm.com> <87ir866ocg.fsf@j228-gm.comp.glam.ac.uk> <87r6mqif61.fsf@j228-gm.comp.glam.ac.uk> <871weops83.fsf@j228-gm.comp.glam.ac.uk> From: Gaius Mulley Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 16:59:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <87fy0b6nnz.fsf@j228-gm.comp.glam.ac.uk> User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2007-10/txt/msg00425.txt.bz2 Jim Blandy writes: > Gaius Mulley writes: > > - I wonder whether it might be better to hold off applying the patch > > and attempt to solve the problem properly using the COMPUTE_BOUND > > method explained above. > > You're the Modula-2 maintainer, so it's your call, but for what it's > worth, if you think the full DWARF implementation --- both the GCC and > GDB sides --- will take more than a few weeks, and if these unbounded > arrays are a reasonably widely used language construct, I'd counsel > you to go ahead and commit the current patch. The work is already > done; there's no reason to make the perfect the enemy of the good. Hi Jim, Just a small note to say that I'm going to follow your advice and commit these original patches (and test codes) before too much time elapses. I've re-tested the code on the current CVS snapshot and it doesn't cause any extra regression failures. I guess I'd just like to flag this as about to happen.. regards, Gaius