From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26606 invoked by alias); 14 Oct 2013 18:18:56 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 26597 invoked by uid 89); 14 Oct 2013 18:18:56 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 14 Oct 2013 18:18:55 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r9EIIrLk025854 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 14 Oct 2013 14:18:53 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn-113-54.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.54]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r9EIIp7S026901 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 14 Oct 2013 14:18:52 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Jonathan Wakely Subject: Re: [patch] Support C++11 rvalue (move constructor) References: <20131012152836.GA9438@host2.jankratochvil.net> <87fvs33kb7.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20131014175747.GA9176@host2.jankratochvil.net> Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 18:18:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20131014175747.GA9176@host2.jankratochvil.net> (Jan Kratochvil's message of "Mon, 14 Oct 2013 19:57:47 +0200") Message-ID: <87hacj1zsk.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2013-10/txt/msg00446.txt.bz2 >> 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 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 after some completions one easily gets to Jan> 1GB GDB and more (but IMO this is a bug 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