This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] Unary plus
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- To: Nathan Sidwell <nathan at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 08:39:58 -0500
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Unary plus
- References: <4209E2F1.2000504@codesourcery.com> <20050227003608.GC19138@nevyn.them.org> <422D838D.3090108@codesourcery.com>
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 10:50:53AM +0000, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> >Two comments:
> >
> >- Could you add a non-tracepoint testcase for this? I think one good
> >place would be gdb.cp/userdef.exp.
> done. As this overloads operator+, I introduced a new class for
> the breakpoint test.
>
>
> >>! if (TYPE_CODE (type) == TYPE_CODE_FLT)
> >>! return arg1;
> >
> >
> >- IIUC, that's not quite right - we need an rvalue here.
>
> Like this?
>
> built and tested on i686-pc-linux-gnu, ok?
OK. This comment isn't quite right after the rvalue fix:
> ! /* The unary operators - and ~. Both free the argument ARG1. */
>
> struct value *
> value_neg (struct value *arg1)
> --- 1316,1350 ----
> }
> }
>
> ! /* The unary operators +, - and ~. They free the argument ARG1
> ! (unless it is returned). */
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC