This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFC] Revisit PR 16253 ("Attempt to use a type name...")
- From: Keith Seitz <keiths at redhat dot com>
- To: Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 08:46:24 -0700
- Subject: Re: [RFC] Revisit PR 16253 ("Attempt to use a type name...")
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <001a1135a192a92e3f0518a643d3 at google dot com>
On 06/16/2015 10:54 AM, Doug Evans wrote:
>
> This approach is an improvement with no ill effects (that I can see),
> so I'm ok with it.
> Please add a reference to PR 16253 in the "hack" comment
> in the code.
>
Will do.
> Do other callers of symbol_matches_domain need similar treatment?
> I was wondering about block_lookup_symbol.
Yeah, I wonder about that myself, but I am cautious to commit to that
unless I can coverage test it. So far, I've not been able to trigger a
failure in any of these.
The proposed change is (intentionally) very conservative. While I could
be convinced to add it (nearly?) wherever symbol_matches_domain is used,
coverage testing will be difficult, if not impossible. [I spent many,
many hours doing coverage testing of the completer API change. It was
gruesome!]
> btw, here's some perf data using the gmonster1-pervasive-typedef.exp
> test from my monster testcase generator.
Thanks for that! I haven't yet had a go at it this.
Keith