Re: [RFA] Add type support for Ada

[Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>]

Aidan Skinner <aidan@velvet.net> writes:
> Thanks for answering these Paul. :)
> 
> > > It looks to me as if the string cleanup stuff is distinct from the
> > > fixed instance stuff.  These should be submitted as separate patches.
> > 
> > They definitely are logically separate changes.
> 
> Yeah, I'll split and resubmit and probably take the opportunity to
> include some more string cleanup stuff, rather than just the bits that
> ada-* reference...

Thanks!

> > > Should base_type use the tortoise-and-hare algorithm to detect cycles?
> > 
> > An interesting suggestion.  However, there is at least one existing
> > place where GDB doesn't bother.  Compare with the following (non-Ada-
> 
> I think it's worthwhile doing here, and if it works nicely it can be
> stolen for other places. My next revision of this patch will include
> this.

Great.

> > Umm. Interesting questions.  As I recall, I had the impression that 
> > a self-referencing range type COULD occur legitimately, but given that was
> 
> I think they can, but my current understanding of the gdb type system
> probably bears some resemblence to swiss cheese. ;)
> 
> I'll experiment a bit with trying to create one and see what I can find.
> 
> > 4 years ago, my memory could be faulty.  I suspect these tests were simply
> > bullet-(or segfault)-proofing.  Replacing the NULL check at least with
> > an error would probably be a worthy experiment.
> 
> Sounds like a plan.

Super.  I can't tell whether this was the intention in that code, but
I'd much rather see GDB throw an internal error when it finds
something bogus than return some handy plausible value.