[RFA] patch for 2384, dangling TYPE_VPTR_BASETYPE

Daniel Jacobowitz drow@false.org
Fri Dec 14 06:23:00 GMT 2007

On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 04:10:55PM -0800, Doug Evans wrote:
> Ok to check in?  Or any suggestions for what's needed instead?

Your patch seems strange to me.  Do we need the new fieldno /
basetype, or not?  If we don't, we shouldn't be calculating it at all;
if we do, there should be something detectable which breaks when you
do this.  It's not just a cache, since the interface doesn't offer any
other way to return the new fieldno / basetype besides in-place

I happen to know that for GNU v3 - which is in practice the only thing
that any GDB users use nowadays - we don't need these fields any more.
We still use them, but we could do without, since the ABI is quite
clear on where to find the vtable pointer.

For GNU v2, which is theoretically still supported, we do need this

Daniel Jacobowitz

More information about the Gdb-patches mailing list