From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32085 invoked by alias); 2 Oct 2002 18:59:32 -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 32078 invoked from network); 2 Oct 2002 18:59:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO zenia.red-bean.com) (66.244.67.22) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 Oct 2002 18:59:31 -0000 Received: (from jimb@localhost) by zenia.red-bean.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g92Igow02642; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:42:50 -0500 To: Aidan Skinner Cc: Hilfinger@otisco.mckusick.com, ac131313@redhat.com, drow@mvista.com, per@bothner.com, green@redhat.com, muller@cerbere.u-.strasbg.fr, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Add type support for Ada References: <20020926040044.I32211@velvet.net> <3D93C161.2070409@redhat.com> <200209280925.CAA10025@otisco.McKusick.COM> <20021001041712.E8933@velvet.net> From: Jim Blandy Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 11:59:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20021001041712.E8933@velvet.net> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2.90 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg00067.txt.bz2 Aidan Skinner 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.