From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5223 invoked by alias); 28 Aug 2002 22:47:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 5213 invoked from network); 28 Aug 2002 22:47:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jackfruit.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.38.136) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 28 Aug 2002 22:47:06 -0000 Received: (from carlton@localhost) by jackfruit.Stanford.EDU (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7SMl0j17633; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:47:00 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: jackfruit.Stanford.EDU: carlton set sender to carlton@math.stanford.edu using -f To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Andrew Cagney Subject: Re: [David Carlton ] Re: [RFA] dwarf2read.c: set TYPE_DOMAIN_TYPE correctly for methods References: <20020828224247.GA27335@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: David Carlton Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 16:43:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20020828224247.GA27335@nevyn.them.org> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00959.txt.bz2 On Wed, 28 Aug 2002 18:42:47 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz said: >> + /* NOTE: carlton/2002-08-22: Previously, the second argument to >> + smash_to_method_type was die->type rather than type, and the >> + type argument to dwarf2_add_member_fn didn't exst. This is >> + incorrect: the second argument to smash_to_method_type should >> + be the type of the class that this is a method of, whereas >> + die->type is the type of the method itself. So we need to >> + pass that type in from read_structure_scope explicitly. See >> + PR gdb/653. */ > I'd rather a comment like: > /* TYPE is the domain of this method, and DIE->TYPE is the type > of the method itself (TYPE_CODE_METHOD). */ > There's no point in cluttering up the code with history of this sort > unless you have low confidence in the change's effect on some odd > corner-case. That's just my personal judgement, though. I agree. I'd originally put in the excessively verbose comment because Andrew complained about my putting too much information in the ChangeLog instead of a comment, but I think that your version of the comment is better. > If you agree, mind committing it with that or a similar change? Great, will do (unless Andrew complains about the new version of the comment). David Carlton carlton@math.stanford.edu