From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29517 invoked by alias); 22 Aug 2002 20:38:27 -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 29510 invoked from network); 22 Aug 2002 20:38:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jackfruit.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.38.136) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Aug 2002 20:38:26 -0000 Received: (from carlton@localhost) by jackfruit.Stanford.EDU (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7MKcQq15730; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:38:26 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: jackfruit.Stanford.EDU: carlton set sender to carlton@math.stanford.edu using -f To: gdb Subject: TYPE_VPTR_BASETYPE and TYPE_DOMAIN_TYPE Cc: carlton@math.stanford.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: David Carlton Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:38:00 -0000 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/msg00268.txt.bz2 What's the deal with TYPE_VPTR_BASETYPE and TYPE_DOMAIN_TYPE being the same thing? Did struct main_type once contain two different members that got merged? It seems like a potential source of confusion right now (it certainly slowed me down when tracking down a recent bug). It seems like there are two obvious fixes. If we're not planning to split them back apart in the near future, then either TYPE_VPTR_BASETYPE or TYPE_DOMAIN_TYPE should be elimininated. If we want to leave open the possibility of splitting them back apart, however, then the comment before the definition of the vptr_basetype field should be emended to say when you're supposed to use TYPE_VPTR_BASETYPE to access it and when you're supposed to use TYPE_DOMAIN_TYPE to access it. (And, of course, all uses should be checked to make sure they follow that recommendation.) I'd be happy to make either of those changes, if people agree that one of them is a good idea. David Carlton carlton@math.stanford.edu