From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25483 invoked by alias); 28 Jan 2008 18:17:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 25475 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Jan 2008 18:17:11 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (216.239.33.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:16:54 +0000 Received: from zps18.corp.google.com (zps18.corp.google.com [172.25.146.18]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id m0SIGkmc021058 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:16:47 GMT Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com (wahj40.prod.google.com [10.114.236.40]) by zps18.corp.google.com with ESMTP id m0SIEeah015103 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:16:46 -0800 Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id j40so3437152wah.11 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:16:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.114.78.1 with SMTP id a1mr2672739wab.102.1201544205935; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:16:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.115.107.7 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:16:45 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 19:05:00 -0000 From: "Doug Evans" To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] patch for 2384, dangling TYPE_VPTR_BASETYPE In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20071214002920.GA1208@caradoc.them.org> X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2008-01/txt/msg00650.txt.bz2 Ping ... On Dec 20, 2007 11:40 AM, Doug Evans wrote: > On Dec 13, 2007 4:29 PM, Daniel Jacobowitz 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? >