From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3879 invoked by alias); 1 Apr 2003 17:34:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 3870 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2003 17:34:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 1 Apr 2003 17:34:05 -0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (nat-pool-rdu-dmz.redhat.com [172.16.52.200] (may be forged)) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h31HY4Q00493 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 12:34:05 -0500 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h31HY4Q25849 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 12:34:04 -0500 Received: from cygbert.vinschen.de (vpn50-16.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.16]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h31HY1522551 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 09:34:01 -0800 Received: (from corinna@localhost) by cygbert.vinschen.de (8.11.6/8.9.3/Linux sendmail 8.9.3) id h31HXpg13819 for gdb@sources.redhat.com; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 19:33:51 +0200 Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 17:34:00 -0000 From: Corinna Vinschen To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Problem with virtual function pointers Message-ID: <20030401173351.GI18138@cygbert.vinschen.de> Reply-To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20030327142412.GK23762@cygbert.vinschen.de> <20030327145346.GA7253@nevyn.them.org> <20030327152022.GL23762@cygbert.vinschen.de> <20030327152652.GA8010@nevyn.them.org> <20030327161824.GM23762@cygbert.vinschen.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030327161824.GM23762@cygbert.vinschen.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00009.txt.bz2 Is there any news on that? Corinna On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 05:18:24PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 10:26:52AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > There's your bug, right on schedule. Look at the line: > > addr = unpack_pointer (lookup_pointer_type (builtin_type_void), valaddr); > > > > Recommend using builtin_type_void_func_ptr instead of > > lookup_pointer_type (builtin_type_void). Does that fix it? > > Yes, it does fix the problem. Thank you! > > However, I don't understand why it's done this way. The incoming > type into this function is already correct AFAICS (well, this time, > I didn't get it when I wrote my first posting, apparently). type > is a TYPE_CODE_PTR to a TYPE_CODE_METHOD to TYPE_CODE_VOID. > > So, from my point of view the correct call would just be > > addr = unpack_pointer (type, valaddr); > > Why isn't type just used as is? > > Btw., I've just ran the full c++ testsuite again and using just type shows > no regressions (for xstormy16). > > > Corinna > > -- > Corinna Vinschen > Cygwin Developer > Red Hat, Inc. > mailto:vinschen@redhat.com -- Corinna Vinschen Cygwin Developer Red Hat, Inc. mailto:vinschen@redhat.com