This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] Classify non-POD struct types more or less correctly on AMD64
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: Mark Kettenis <kettenis at chello dot nl>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 13:36:22 -0500
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Classify non-POD struct types more or less correctly on AMD64
- References: <200401101800.i0AI0Zm6026623@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org>
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:00:35PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> This (together with the previous patch) fixes the problems I saw with
> gdb.cp/bs15503.exp. The check for non-POD-ness isn't complete though.
> I hope to revisit that later, after someone tells me how to properly
> determine non-POD-ness.
> P.S. The amd64_non_pod_p function should probably be moved to the
> generic cod, but we can do that later.
Does the x86-64 ABI really pass non-POD and POD types of the same size
differently? If so, I hope the ABI defines non-POD rather than relying
on the C++ definition, since we do not generally have enough
information in the debug info to determine whether a type is POD.
> + /* ??? A class with a base class certainly isn't POD, but does this
> + catch all non-POD structure types? */
> + if (TYPE_CODE (type) == TYPE_CODE_STRUCT && TYPE_N_BASECLASSES (type) > 0)
> + return 1;
No, at least any type with explicitly declared methods is non-POD. For
DWARF you can probably get this right by checking for a non-artificial
method but for stabs you're SOL.
I don't remember what other things determine POD-ness. I think
private/public may also.
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer