This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [patch] Delete FIELD_LOC_KIND_DWARF_BLOCK, unused.
- From: Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>
- To: Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:57:32 +0200
- Subject: Re: [patch] Delete FIELD_LOC_KIND_DWARF_BLOCK, unused.
- References: <20100627165540.D944984613@ruffy.mtv.corp.google.com>
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 18:55:40 +0200, Doug Evans wrote:
> This patch is strictly cleanup.
> It deletes FIELD_LOC_KIND_DWARF_BLOCK as it is unused.
Just a background for it why it was introduced and why it is no longer needed
even for future additions.
It has been introduced a s part of VLA (Variable Length Arrays) patch series
importing which I never finished that time (and should start again soon).
Re: [patch] static_kind -> bit0, bit1 [Re: [gdb] Fortran dynamic arrays]
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-09/msg00425.html
# The first goal, as I understand it, is to be able to extend range
# types so that the bounds can be DWARF blocks.
Just in the meantime this FIELD_LOC_KIND_* is no longer used for array bounds
as new TYPE_RANGE_DATA different field of the union in the former place of
TYPE_FIELDS has been introduced:
[COMMIT] 64-bit range types in GDB
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-12/msg00181.html
The current FSF GDB HEAD uses just `LONGEST low, high;' for the bounds.
archer-jankratochvil-vla therefore has ported this FIELD_LOC_KIND_DWARF_BLOCK
to:
struct
{
union
{
LONGEST constant;
struct dwarf2_locexpr_baton *dwarf_block;
struct
{
struct dwarf2_loclist_baton *loclist;
struct type *type;
}
dwarf_loclist;
}
u;
enum range_bound_kind
{
RANGE_BOUND_KIND_CONSTANT,
RANGE_BOUND_KIND_DWARF_BLOCK,
RANGE_BOUND_KIND_DWARF_LOCLIST
}
kind;
}
/* Low bound of range. */
low,
/* High bound of range. */
high,
/* Byte stride of range. */
byte_stride;
But that is not currently submitted for a review.
> I will commit this in a few days if there are no objections.
BTW I agree.
Thanks,
Jan