Re: MI: fix base members in references

[Nick Roberts <nickrob at snap dot net dot nz>]

 > If you can't explain why your change is correct, then by default, it is
 > not the correct fix.  We can't just throw bandages at the codebase;
 > that's how you get bigger onions, not better programs.

I'm not claiming it's correct, just a step in the right direction, but we could
go round in circles (or onion rings!) here.  Its not a RFA.

 > >  > get_type_deref looks at the type, and if it is a pointer or reference,
 > >  > it dereferences it.  I assume that this is because we want to show the
 > >  > children of pointers to structs and references to structs.  Is that
 > >  > right?
 > > 
 > > My patch was just for references to pointers.
 > 
 > Sorry, I don't know how else to explain what that function does;

I'm not querying your explanation, just saying that the patch *wasn't* about
showing the children of pointers to structs and references to structs.

 >                                                                  that's
 > the important thing here.  What does not happen that you want to make
 > happen, and why doesn't it happen?  The explanation in my previous
 > message _should_ answer those questions, if I've understood the
 > discussion right, but maybe it doesn't.

What doesn't work: references to pointers to structs/unions.

All my patch does is add an extra level of dereferencing to the relevant
cplus_* functions.  Presumably you could also have references to references to
pointers, pointers to references to pointers etc so maybe the change should
look something like:

      while (TYPE_CODE (type) == TYPE_CODE_PTR)
             || TYPE_CODE (type) == TYPE_CODE_REF)
	type = get_target_type (type);

but I suspect the business of fake children would make this awkward.

-- 
Nick                                           http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob