This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFA: fix PR python/11792
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 06:05:04 +0300
- Subject: Re: RFA: fix PR python/11792
- References: <m3zkwdozop.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <m3y6boj7y8.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <83sk1wj6tq.fsf@gnu.org> <m3pqwzj1cf.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <83pqwzkeyi.fsf@gnu.org> <m3wrr58501.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> From: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 16:37:34 -0600
>
> >>>>> "Eli" == Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>
> Tom> The current language doesn't matter; all that matters is whether the
> Tom> object has the needed run-time type information.
>
> Eli> Then IMO the text should be rephrased, because it currently sounds
> Eli> like this feature needs C++. Perhaps use C++ just "for example" or
> Eli> something.
>
> I think that would be more confusing. The information needed is
> specifically that emitted by the C++ compiler, following the relevant
> C++ ABI. "For example" makes it sound as though other kinds of run-time
> type information might be used -- but that is not the case.
Now I'm confused: earlier you told that the current language doesn't
matter, but now you say that only information emitted by the C++
compiler will do, which seems a contradiction. What am I missing?