From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1754 invoked by alias); 18 Jan 2002 20:09:59 -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 1709 invoked from network); 18 Jan 2002 20:09:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dberlin.org) (64.246.6.106) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Jan 2002 20:09:57 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by dberlin.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g0IJYOn25039; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 14:34:25 -0500 Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 12:09:00 -0000 From: Daniel Berlin To: Petr Sorfa cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , Subject: Re: Upcoming DWARF 3 and FORTRAN95 patches for 5.1.1 or 5.2? In-Reply-To: <3C484734.EBA45CF3@caldera.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg00217.txt.bz2 On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, Petr Sorfa wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > A comment about the patch you mentioned before: > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2001-06/msg00441.html > > I noticed that you put new entries into struct symbol of type locexpr. > I'm not too sure if that is the correct to place them. In my > understanding these location expressions need only be associated with > the type of a symbol rather than the symbol itself. No, it describes the location of a symbol, not of a type. Two symbols of the same type could be in different places (one in register, one in memory). Think of location lists, too. I could have two symbols of the same type in completely different places in memory and registers, at a given time (IE each in two different live ranges). > This will remove > unnecessary replication of data and save the extra few bytes. Or am I > making to many assumptions here? Also, part of the idea of using our own bytecode was being able to describe the location of complex things, such a vtable entry, in a portable way. > > Petr >