From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4230 invoked by alias); 13 Oct 2010 19:04:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 4218 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Oct 2010 19:04:01 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.2 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; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 19:03:55 +0000 Received: from int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o9DJ3qRh027123 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:03:52 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o9DJ3pMJ006810; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:03:51 -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 o9DJ3ps8032064; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:03:51 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id CC4BF3791BC; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 13:03:50 -0600 (MDT) From: Tom Tromey To: Doug Evans Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] fix exp/12117 References: <20101013175308.17B772461AE@ruffy.mtv.corp.google.com> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 19:04:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Doug Evans's message of "Wed, 13 Oct 2010 11:55:25 -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: 2010-10/txt/msg00234.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Doug" == Doug Evans writes: Doug> a) it seems like it's not just c/v, e.g., it's also the address space Doug> [and perhaps here's a case where there are more bugs in this area :-)] Yeah. Actually, this one seems like it could cause real problems somewhere. Doug> b) it seems odd to have to build such types on the fly Doug> [I can imagine a proliferation of such objects that aren't attached to Doug> anything concrete in the debug info, and just cause confusion] I'm not sure I understand. The qualified variants are all linked together and allocated alongside the main_type, so we don't have to worry about memory leaks or excess type reinstantiation. In fact I think the user can cause this sort of type allocation by writing "const sometype" in an expression. Tom