Re: [RFA] patch for 2384, dangling TYPE_VPTR_BASETYPE

["Doug Evans" <dje@google.com>]

Ping ...

On Dec 20, 2007 11:40 AM, Doug Evans <dje@google.com> wrote:
> 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?
>