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: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- To: Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil 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 12:18:51 -0600
- 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> <20131014175747 dot GA9176 at host2 dot jankratochvil dot net>
>> Is that also true for inferior calls?
>> I didn't look.
Jan> GDB cannot call constructors so this is irrelevant now.
I'm not sure constructors matter. rvalue references affect overloading,
e.g.:
#include <stdio.h>
int ov(int &x) { return 0; }
int ov(int &&x) { return 1; }
int main() {
int z = 23;
printf ("%d %d\n", ov(z), ov(23));
}
Tom> Maybe the size increase isn't that important.
Jan> I always thought the opposite is true.
Jan> Due to CU expansion with <tab> after some completions one easily gets to
Jan> 1GB GDB and more (but IMO this is a bug <tab> should not expand CUs).
I think what's missing is an idea of the amount that struct main_type
contributes.
My recollection is that I concluded that shrinking types wasn't
worthwhile. However, it's worthwhile to redo the experiment, at least
if you plan to completely fix this problem.
Tom