From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27969 invoked by alias); 24 Jun 2010 11:39:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 27955 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Jun 2010 11:39:01 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,TW_BJ X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-iw0-f169.google.com (HELO mail-iw0-f169.google.com) (209.85.214.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 11:38:54 +0000 Received: by iwn39 with SMTP id 39so6066792iwn.0 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 04:38:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.193.209 with SMTP id dv17mr9797563ibb.134.1277379532973; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 04:38:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.152.136 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 04:38:52 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4C20103B.1080906@redhat.com> <201006221045.23196.pedro@codesourcery.com> <4C20DA1A.10301@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 11:39:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFA] c++/11734 From: Matt Rice To: Doug Evans Cc: Keith Seitz , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Pedro Alves , Tom Tromey Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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: 2010-06/txt/msg00520.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Doug Evans wrote: > "c::foo" looks enough like an objc symbol that decode_objc will call > lookup_symbol ("c::foo") its possibly worth noting that c::foo is not really a valid objective-c selector/method name a method which would contain unnamed message pieces (not really sure the correct wording) which would lead to '::' also must end in a colon. so the following method is valid: - (int) c:(int)a :(int)b foo:(int)c; { return a + b + c; } which would equal 'c::foo:' while 'foo' is a valid for a name for a method which has no parameters and does not end in a colon. you can't mix and match parameter taking message pieces and non-paramater accepting ones in the same message, they either do or they don't accept parameters. and making it foo:(void) isn't valid either.