From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16434 invoked by alias); 23 Jul 2010 17:21:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 16423 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Jul 2010 17:21:15 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:21:11 +0000 Received: from int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.17]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o6NHL9i5016405 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 13:21:09 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o6NHL9h7012991; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 13:21:09 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o6NHL8eK006917; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 13:21:08 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 3B7E45085FA; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:21:08 -0600 (MDT) From: Tom Tromey To: Keith Seitz Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] Pre-expand psymtabs for STATIC_BLOCK types References: <4C48C209.10708@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:21:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <4C48C209.10708@redhat.com> (Keith Seitz's message of "Thu, 22 Jul 2010 15:11:21 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (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: 2010-07/txt/msg00361.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Keith" == Keith Seitz writes: Keith> In basic_lookup_transparent_type, we call the pre-expand psymtabs hook Keith> for the GLOBAL_BLOCK but not for the STATIC_BLOCK. I believe this was Keith> a simple omission (as opposed to intentional). Yes it was. Keith> Ok? Yes. Thanks for finding and fixing this. Tom