From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29712 invoked by alias); 9 Feb 2010 19:23:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact archer-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Sender: Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Received: (qmail 29703 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Feb 2010 19:23:55 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <4B71B645.2050806@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 19:23:00 -0000 From: Sami Wagiaalla User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100120 Fedora/3.0.1-1.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: archer@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [rfc] patch for pr8880 References: <4B703D65.302@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2010-q1/txt/msg00074.txt.bz2 On 02/08/2010 12:30 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Sami" == Sami Wagiaalla writes: > > Sami> This was a long chase but an easy fix. > Sami> Thoughts ? > > Lots of formatting nits. > > Also I have a few more substantive comments. > > Sami> +struct value * > Sami> +value_at_value (struct value *value) > Sami> +{ > Sami> + return value_at(TYPE_TARGET_TYPE (value_type(value)), > Sami> + value_as_address(value)); > > Why not just use value_ind? > value_ind works. I just missed it :) > Sami> @@ -2104,6 +2111,9 @@ value_struct_elt (struct value **argp, struct value **args, > > Modifying value_struct_elt seems dangerous. This is called from many > places in the code, including some which don't expect ADL to be used -- > e.g., Java, Ada. > > Can this be done by the caller somehow instead? > Or perhaps some refactoring is needed. > I could put this code in a function to be called from value_x_binop and value_x_unop. That would at least avoid the awkward argument counting but not earlier than that since the arguments need to have been evaluated and/or add a check for la_language == language_cplus. > Also, ADL should only be done for unqualified names. > It isn't clear to me that this change satisfies that requirement. > Let me look into this. It might be a general problem I don't think gdb ever differentiates between qualified and unqualified names