[RFA] patch for 2384, dangling TYPE_VPTR_BASETYPE
Thu Dec 20 19:49:00 GMT 2007
On Dec 13, 2007 4:29 PM, Daniel Jacobowitz <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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
Silly me. How about this?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 15656 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Gdb-patches