This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [patch] const array types

From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
To: Pedro Alves <pedro at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>, Ken Werner <ken at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 09:14:32 -0700
Subject: Re: [patch] const array types
References: <201009151920.37105.ken@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20100923223709.GA25145@host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20100924144234.GF3007@adacore.com> <201009241638.27072.pedro@codesourcery.com>

> I disagree:

I certainly understimated the consequences of this little distinction
(I haven't used C++ 1994 or 1995)!

> It looks sane to me to not emit a whole new struct type based on
> struct S that includes a `const inst x' just for `b' (rather than
> DW_TAG_const_type pointing at struct S).  Is `a' really any different?

I see you point. Perhaps this should be clarified at the DWARF level
as well?

> E.g., out of the blue, in C++ it can make the user call the
> wrong function from gdb, when there are overloads
> involved (, or templates, I guess):

Ugh!

-- 
Joel

References:
- [patch] const array types
  - From: Ken Werner
- Re: [patch] const array types
  - From: Jan Kratochvil
- Re: [patch] const array types
  - From: Joel Brobecker
- Re: [patch] const array types
  - From: Pedro Alves

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]