This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Archer project.
Re: "long" vs. "long int" (what a mess!)
On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 10:21:57AM -0700, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Daniel> http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2007-10/msg00510.html
> Perhaps we should put this on the branch. Is there any reason that we
Not that I can think of, though I'm still vaguely unhappy about my
> How does keytype end up as 'long' and not 'const long int'? Is it
> because cp_comp_to_string returns the type in a different form than
> what is stored internally?
This I have no idea. The missing const is not a canonicalization
issue; it will not add or drop consts, naturally.
> It seems like in the long term it would be useful to have GCC emit
> canonicalized names and then set a flag so that the gdb dwarf reader
> could skip the canonicalization step. Or am I missing something?
This sounds awfully fragile, because it means that GCC and GDB must be
completely in sync about the meaning of canonicalization at all times.