Re: [RFA/c++] Fix printing classes with virtual base classes

Daniel Jacobowitz
2001-11-27T07:45:00Z

On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 10:16:56AM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> writes:
> > On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 11:39:34PM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm with you on VALUE_OFFSET and VALUE_EMBEDDED_OFFSET. I'm pretty
> > > sure VALUE_OFFSET can be eliminated from GDB entirely, with some minor
> > > changes to the representation of subvalues of registers and
> > > convenience variables.
> >
> > I am exceedingly tempted to do this.
>
> Yeah, wouldn't it be nice if VALUE_ADDRESS returned, oh, say, the
> value's address? For register and convenience variable subvalues, use
> the value's address field instead of the offset field. I'm pretty
> sure VALUE_OFFSET goes away entirely then.

If I get a little spare time, or adequately frustrated with vtables,
I'm going to try for this.

--
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer