On Dec 13, 2007 4:29 PM, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 04:10:55PM -0800, Doug Evans wrote:
> > Ok to check in?  Or any suggestions for what's needed instead?
>
> Your patch seems strange to me.  Do we need the new fieldno /
> basetype, or not?  If we don't, we shouldn't be calculating it at all;
> if we do, there should be something detectable which breaks when you
> do this.  It's not just a cache, since the interface doesn't offer any
> other way to return the new fieldno / basetype besides in-place
> modification.
>
> I happen to know that for GNU v3 - which is in practice the only thing
> that any GDB users use nowadays - we don't need these fields any more.
> We still use them, but we could do without, since the ABI is quite
> clear on where to find the vtable pointer.
>
> For GNU v2, which is theoretically still supported, we do need this
> information.

Silly me.  How about this?