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: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- To: Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, Jim Blandy <jimb at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:29:20 -0500
- Subject: Re: [RFA] patch for 2384, dangling TYPE_VPTR_BASETYPE
- References: <e394668d0712131610w432ee506t38cfd4abfbf6ed7a@mail.gmail.com>
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.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery