From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11265 invoked by alias); 8 Nov 2012 22:27:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 11213 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Nov 2012 22:27:58 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.8 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; Thu, 08 Nov 2012 22:27:50 +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 qA8MRn9X028374 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 17:27:50 -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 qA8M112r015092 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 8 Nov 2012 17:01:01 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Keith Seitz Cc: "gdb-patches\@sourceware.org ml" Subject: Re: [RFA] c++/13615 In-Reply-To: <874nkzhi6p.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> (Tom Tromey's message of "Thu, 08 Nov 2012 14:57:02 -0700") References: <505119AE.6040401@redhat.com> <87sja4wlqt.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <506F38C2.4050107@redhat.com> <874nkzhi6p.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 22:27:00 -0000 Message-ID: <87sj8jg3fm.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> 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/msg00221.txt.bz2 Keith> ptype N::Derived::value_type should print 'int' -- but from the Keith> comment and placement of this code I wonder if it would print 'double'. Sigh. This can't possibly be right. I wonder what I was thinking. Please ignore it all, I'll review the patch again tomorrow. Tom