This is the mail archive of the
gdb-prs@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
[Bug c++/14186] const volatile is ignored for TYPE_INSTANCE
- From: "palves at redhat dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla at sourceware dot org>
- To: gdb-prs at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 18:31:51 +0000
- Subject: [Bug c++/14186] const volatile is ignored for TYPE_INSTANCE
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-14186-4717@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14186
Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |palves at redhat dot com
--- Comment #3 from Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com> ---
Keith informed me today that I fixed this PR with this patch:
https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2017-07/msg00147.html
commit 3693fdb3c8ec14bd8ecb4ebb39e4384b330a2999
Author: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
AuthorDate: Mon Sep 4 20:21:16 2017 +0100
Make "p S::method() const::static_var" work too
Somehow I completely managed to overlook that that caused:
KPASS: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: p CV::m(int) const (PRMS c++/14186)
KPASS: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: p CV::m(int) volatile (PRMS c++/14186)
KPASS: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: p CV::m(int) const volatile (PRMS c++/14186)
It pains me to realize that this had a partially written patch here...
There are some similarities, and some differences; In your version from 2012,
it seems like you avoided touching dwarf2read.c, with the "inexact_match"
check in value_struct_elt_for_reference, but I'm not really sure I understand
that. And now I'm wondering whether we're missing something in master around
overload resolution, since in the use case I was aiming for [accessing local
statics], I was only thinking of exact matches.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.