From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31520 invoked by alias); 6 Jun 2008 02:41:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 31491 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Jun 2008 02:41:49 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 06 Jun 2008 02:41:25 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m562fNZT002911 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 22:41:23 -0400 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [10.11.255.20]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m562fN91021277; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 22:41:23 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (vpn-10-81.bos.redhat.com [10.16.10.81]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m562fMDj030963; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 22:41:23 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 216CE508249; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 20:41:22 -0600 (MDT) To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] Patch to limit field name completion candidates References: <20080605170952.GJ29085@caradoc.them.org> <20080605194553.GG25085@caradoc.them.org> <20080605200807.GJ25085@caradoc.them.org> <20080606023129.GB23233@caradoc.them.org> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: Tom Tromey X-Attribution: Tom Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 02:41:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20080606023129.GB23233@caradoc.them.org> (Daniel Jacobowitz's message of "Thu\, 5 Jun 2008 22\:31\:29 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (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: 2008-06/txt/msg00099.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz writes: Daniel> You don't recurse into base classes... for C++ this is Daniel> obviously a substantial problem. Thanks -- I will look at this. Daniel> Then there's the additional question of dynamic type. I did think about this one, but forgot to mention it. I don't see a good way to make it work in general. It could be made to work sometimes, but not always. In particular I think we could add a "don't evaluate side effects" mode to expression evaluation -- this would do an ok job except for the case of an expression involving an inferior function call. In that case I think we could still only use the static type. Tom