From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15150 invoked by alias); 24 Apr 2009 06:06:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 15137 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Apr 2009 06:06:23 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,J_CHICKENPOX_93,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 06:06:18 +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 n3O64GD7032187; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 02:04:16 -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 n3O64FMJ022536; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 02:04:15 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (vpn-14-41.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.14.41]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n3O64EMa009937; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 02:04:15 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 7698837829A; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 00:04:13 -0600 (MDT) To: Pedro Alves Cc: Keith Seitz , 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> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: tromey@redhat.com Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 06:06:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <200904072154.45602.pedro@codesourcery.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Tue\, 7 Apr 2009 21\:54\:45 +0100") 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/msg00686.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: Keith> Can you apply the attached patch to your tree and try again? Pedro> Since this stabs patch in now in HEAD, I've redone the testing. I Pedro> confirm that with this patch installed, your original patch doesn't Pedro> introduce any new failures on the templates.exp test on Pedro> stabs --- gcc 4.2, or head. Yay! Keith> So, I guess my position is that since stabs is so darn broken any way, Keith> we might as well apply the patch and deal with the fallout. At least Keith> then we'll know (and hopefully document) WHY all this special casing of Keith> dtors is necessary. Pedro> On my end, your original patch is clear to go in. I re-read this whole thread this evening, and as far as I can tell, the original cleanup patch is ok. Early in the thread, Keith said he'd send a new one that also removed get_destructor_fn_field. Keith, could you do that? thanks, Tom