From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1101 invoked by alias); 24 Apr 2009 22:49:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 1071 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Apr 2009 22:49:56 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx2.redhat.com (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (66.187.237.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 22:49:51 +0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n3OMnk4W001066 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 18:49:46 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n3OMnjM9003292; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 18:49:45 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (vpn-12-101.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.12.101]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n3OMnixa030666; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 18:49:44 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id D90C0888034; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 16:49:43 -0600 (MDT) To: Keith Seitz Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Special casing dtors? References: <49CAB139.8010100@redhat.com> <200903301658.16807.pedro@codesourcery.com> <49D3FCC9.7090505@redhat.com> <200904072154.45602.pedro@codesourcery.com> <49F1FCB5.3080404@redhat.com> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: tromey@redhat.com Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 22:49:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <49F1FCB5.3080404@redhat.com> (Keith Seitz's message of "Fri\, 24 Apr 2009 10\:53\:57 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2009-04/txt/msg00699.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Keith" == Keith Seitz writes: Tom> I re-read this whole thread this evening, and as far as I can tell, Tom> the original cleanup patch is ok. Early in the thread, Keith said Tom> he'd send a new one that also removed get_destructor_fn_field. Tom> Keith, could you do that? Keith> 2009-04-24 Keith Seitz Keith> * gdbtypes.h (get_destructor_fn_field): Remove. No longer needed. Keith> * gdbtypes.c (get_destructor_fn_field): Likewise. This patch and the original patch are both ok. Thanks. Tom