This is the mail archive of the
archer@sourceware.org
mailing list for the Archer project.
Re: "long" vs. "long int" (what a mess!)
- From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- Cc: Paul Pluzhnikov <ppluzhnikov at google dot com>, archer at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 10:21:57 -0700
- Subject: Re: "long" vs. "long int" (what a mess!)
- References: <20081107025507.5BB8E3A6B0D@localhost><20081107143730.GA9939@caradoc.them.org>
- Reply-to: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
>>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> writes:
Paul> All the rest of them cause similar trouble: either they need a
Paul> trailing 'int', or 'unsigned' is in the wrong place, or both :-(
Daniel> Is Tom's patch using the name parser in GDB?
Yeah. That's how we extract template argument types -- we parse the
template, pull out the argument we want, and then look up that type by
name.
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
shouldn't?
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?
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?
Tom