This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] patch for 2384, dangling TYPE_VPTR_BASETYPE
- From: "Doug Evans" <dje at google dot com>
- To: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:16:45 -0800
- Subject: Re: [RFA] patch for 2384, dangling TYPE_VPTR_BASETYPE
- References: <e394668d0712131610w432ee506t38cfd4abfbf6ed7a@mail.gmail.com> <20071214002920.GA1208@caradoc.them.org> <e394668d0712201140x4608e975k4fc03063cfca4cba@mail.gmail.com>
Ping ...
On Dec 20, 2007 11:40 AM, Doug Evans <dje@google.com> wrote:
> On Dec 13, 2007 4:29 PM, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 04:10:55PM -0800, Doug Evans wrote:
> > > Ok to check in? Or any suggestions for what's needed instead?
> >
> > Your patch seems strange to me. Do we need the new fieldno /
> > basetype, or not? If we don't, we shouldn't be calculating it at all;
> > if we do, there should be something detectable which breaks when you
> > do this. It's not just a cache, since the interface doesn't offer any
> > other way to return the new fieldno / basetype besides in-place
> > modification.
> >
> > I happen to know that for GNU v3 - which is in practice the only thing
> > that any GDB users use nowadays - we don't need these fields any more.
> > We still use them, but we could do without, since the ABI is quite
> > clear on where to find the vtable pointer.
> >
> > For GNU v2, which is theoretically still supported, we do need this
> > information.
>
> Silly me. How about this?
>