From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 92297 invoked by alias); 24 Mar 2018 19:48:52 -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 92286 invoked by uid 89); 24 Mar 2018 19:48:51 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=HContent-Transfer-Encoding:8bit X-HELO: smtp.polymtl.ca Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (HELO smtp.polymtl.ca) (132.207.4.11) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sat, 24 Mar 2018 19:48:50 +0000 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 w2OJmih7023578 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Sat, 24 Mar 2018 15:48:48 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 16B3E1E782; Sat, 24 Mar 2018 15:48:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from simark.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A6D71E030; Sat, 24 Mar 2018 15:48:43 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 19:48:00 -0000 From: Simon Marchi To: Wei-min Pan Cc: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3 PR gdb/16959] gdb hangs in infinite recursion In-Reply-To: <1fdfd913-55d2-121a-6228-8e99e3ed4619@oracle.com> References: <1521840352-75024-1-git-send-email-weimin.pan@oracle.com> <58d0f0759e471fb7862da336ba18bde6@polymtl.ca> <71719916-38d0-dd84-e79c-0e9d24dda5aa@oracle.com> <1571cea710a01e250774e10b211672e6@polymtl.ca> <1fdfd913-55d2-121a-6228-8e99e3ed4619@oracle.com> Message-ID: X-Sender: simon.marchi@polymtl.ca User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.4 X-Poly-FromMTA: (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) at Sat, 24 Mar 2018 19:48:44 +0000 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-03/txt/msg00493.txt.bz2 On 2018-03-24 15:32, Wei-min Pan wrote: > The original code is like: > > -      type = check_typedef (type); > -      cp_print_value_fields (type, value_enclosing_type (val), > > So it's passing the real type. Do you think that we still need to pass > the original type? As I explained, I think it would be a good general rule/convention. And since cp_print_value_fields does it's own check_typedef, it shouldn't change the behavior. Simon