On Wed, 28 Aug 2002 18:42:47 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> said:
+ /* NOTE: carlton/2002-08-22: Previously, the second argument to
+ smash_to_method_type was die->type rather than type, and the
+ type argument to dwarf2_add_member_fn didn't exst. This is
+ incorrect: the second argument to smash_to_method_type should
+ be the type of the class that this is a method of, whereas
+ die->type is the type of the method itself. So we need to
+ pass that type in from read_structure_scope explicitly. See
+ PR gdb/653. */
I'd rather a comment like:
/* TYPE is the domain of this method, and DIE->TYPE is the type
of the method itself (TYPE_CODE_METHOD). */
There's no point in cluttering up the code with history of this sort
unless you have low confidence in the change's effect on some odd
corner-case. That's just my personal judgement, though.
I agree. I'd originally put in the excessively verbose comment
because Andrew complained about my putting too much information in the
ChangeLog instead of a comment, but I think that your version of the
comment is better.
If you agree, mind committing it with that or a similar change?
Great, will do (unless Andrew complains about the new version of the
comment).