From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id AqP8JRPpAmE4SQAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 13:44:51 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 939741EDFB; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 13:44:51 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RDNS_DYNAMIC,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (ip-8-43-85-97.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F12651E813 for ; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 13:44:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAF9E38515FB for ; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 17:44:50 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org AAF9E38515FB DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1627580690; bh=xRTAoV6TyZoYkLqlFwPU7KwQgi4V5oTlz3LyfMj/824=; h=Subject:To:References:Date:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=Jjf5OwjImwvmIYQUQBOEwoDgtRTVy7HPoV/v25kgQLJxFsB3anNEt/xrikSAoOHoG iFxGdpiCX2YcevjeVXNDTAH7qV1AtRRfQ5/GlT3TTDbEnaJFDD4RaE4maSnm/uwLH/ kGYNoftbI82sNSpQ1QSNKHO4t5uOaR/owUffiSzI= Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (smtp.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.11]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37823385E838 for ; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 17:44:31 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 37823385E838 Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.polymtl.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 16THiP5l025973 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 29 Jul 2021 13:44:30 -0400 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp.polymtl.ca 16THiP5l025973 Received: from [10.0.0.11] (192-222-157-6.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.157.6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9B2501E813; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 13:44:25 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/16] gdb: make cmd_list_element var an optional union To: Tom Tromey References: <20210714045520.1623120-1-simon.marchi@polymtl.ca> <20210714045520.1623120-16-simon.marchi@polymtl.ca> <87wnpacjaf.fsf@tromey.com> <87im0tauhd.fsf@tromey.com> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 13:44:25 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87im0tauhd.fsf@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Poly-FromMTA: (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) at Thu, 29 Jul 2021 17:44:25 +0000 X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Simon Marchi Cc: Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" On 2021-07-29 1:41 p.m., Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Simon" == Simon Marchi writes: > > Simon> I'd like to add that to our gdb::optional version (maybe predicated on > Simon> _GLIBCXX_DEBUG would be fine)? But I wonder why the one from libstdc++ > Simon> doesn't already have it... > > It might be there, at least along some paths: > > constexpr _Tp& > _M_get() noexcept > { > __glibcxx_assert(this->_M_is_engaged()); > return static_cast<_Dp*>(this)->_M_payload._M_get(); > } > > There are other implementations of this method that don't check, though, > and I don't understand why. Indeed, I filed this with gcc and was (rightfully) corrected: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101659 What other implementations are you referring to? > Anyway I think it would be fine to add. I'll give it a try. Simon