This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] Start abstraction of C++ abi's
- To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <chastain at cygnus dot com>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Start abstraction of C++ abi's
- From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 17:30:25 -0500
- Cc: dberlin at redhat dot com, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com, Elena Zannoni <ezannoni at cygnus dot com>, Jim Blandy <jimb at cygnus dot com>
- References: <200102192211.OAA18590@bosch.cygnus.com>
Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> andrew> This, unfortunatly, makes it sound like more than a cosmetic
> andrew> change :-(
>
> daniel> How so?
> daniel> It wasn't able to detect destructors before, because it was looking
> daniel> for the v2 abi stuff.
>
> I think that Andrew is saying: something that fixes bug is "*more*
> than cosmetic", which means that it needs more review than a purely
> cosmetic change would.
Yes.
> I would like to see before-and-after test suite runs on two different
> platforms with both v2 and v3 g++, and maybe hpux aCC. That's a lot of
> testing but this kind of change is prone to regression errors.
I'm pretty sure Dan is already doing before/after testing on v2 and v3.
As for HP/UX, does it even build? Fixing HPUX getting carried away a
little.
Anyway, it is important to resist the temptation to mix bug fixes in
with mechanical changes It means that if there is a problem then
someone (else) can determine if it was the mechanical change or a
later/earlier bug fix.
enjoy,
Andrew