Re: [patch] Support C++11 rvalue (move constructor)

[Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>]

>> Is that also true for inferior calls?
>> I didn't look.

Jan> GDB cannot call constructors so this is irrelevant now.

I'm not sure constructors matter.  rvalue references affect overloading,
e.g.:

    #include <stdio.h>

    int ov(int &x) { return 0; }
    int ov(int &&x) { return 1; }

    int main() {
      int z = 23;
      printf ("%d %d\n", ov(z), ov(23));
    }


Tom> Maybe the size increase isn't that important.

Jan> I always thought the opposite is true.
Jan> Due to CU expansion with <tab> after some completions one easily gets to
Jan> 1GB GDB and more (but IMO this is a bug <tab> should not expand CUs).

I think what's missing is an idea of the amount that struct main_type
contributes.

My recollection is that I concluded that shrinking types wasn't
worthwhile.  However, it's worthwhile to redo the experiment, at least
if you plan to completely fix this problem.

Tom