This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [patch] Support C++11 rvalue (move constructor)
- From: Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>
- To: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 19:57:47 +0200
- Subject: Re: [patch] Support C++11 rvalue (move constructor)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20131012152836 dot GA9438 at host2 dot jankratochvil dot net> <87fvs33kb7 dot fsf at fleche dot redhat dot com>
On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 18:10:20 +0200, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Jan> Therefore there is a KFAIL in the testcase for it. I do not think
> Jan> GDB needs to handle && differently - except for displaying &&
> Jan> instead of &.
>
> Is that also true for inferior calls?
> I didn't look.
GDB cannot call constructors so this is irrelevant now.
But it looks GCC really passes just a pointer (=like with lvalue reference).
> Maybe the size increase isn't that important.
I always thought the opposite is true.
Due to CU expansion with <tab> after some completions one easily gets to
1GB GDB and more (but IMO this is a bug <tab> should not expand CUs).
> Alternatively maybe it can be handled like qualifiers.
Interesting idea but I would rather go some more clean way.
> It seems reasonable to me -- an improvement, and not blocking any future
> improvements.
I will check it in in some days.
Thanks,
Jan