From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18508 invoked by alias); 26 Mar 2009 22:06:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 18498 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Mar 2009 22:06:20 -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; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 22:06:14 +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 n2QM6Ca0004926 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:06:12 -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 n2QM65A1007130; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:06:05 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (vpn-12-186.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.12.186]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2QM6B3t012109; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:06:12 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 37BA03780FB; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:06:10 -0600 (MDT) To: Keith Seitz Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Special casing dtors? References: <49CAB139.8010100@redhat.com> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: tromey@redhat.com Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 22:07:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <49CAB139.8010100@redhat.com> (Keith Seitz's message of "Wed\, 25 Mar 2009 15\:33\:29 -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: 2009-03/txt/msg00598.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Keith" == Keith Seitz writes: Keith> I've been looking a bit at a patch (in Fedora) which fixes Keith> prms/1112, and I notice that both valops.c and linespec.c treat Keith> destructors as "special case"s -- but nowhere does it say WHY. Keith> I've searched through all the history I can find about this (including Keith> the Cygnus internal ueberbaum), and all I've been able to discover is Keith> that this has been in a LONG time (before 1990). Keith> So out of curiosity, I removed all those special cases, and lo! There Keith> were no new failures, and one new pass in the testsuite (on x86, CVS Keith> HEAD). Keith> Can anyone explain to me either why gdb treats dtors differently from Keith> "normal" methods or why we shouldn't commit something like the Keith> attached patch? Given all the above, I would guess that removing this is the right thing to do. Anything that deletes code *and* improves the test results can only be good :-) Give it a few days; if nobody chimes in with a reason for this mysterious special case, go ahead and check this in. Tom