From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19226 invoked by alias); 24 Sep 2010 14:42:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 19217 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Sep 2010 14:42:48 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 14:42:42 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C18640187; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:42:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id nAEqgJB31LG6; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:42:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D357D40176; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:42:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id BB111F591E; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 07:42:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 16:27:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: Ken Werner , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] const array types Message-ID: <20100924144234.GF3007@adacore.com> References: <201009151920.37105.ken@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20100923223709.GA25145@host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100923223709.GA25145@host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-09/txt/msg00436.txt.bz2 > I have filed now http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45765 as > I believe it could be fixed more at the DWARF producer side. For what it's worth, I tend to agree that this should be fixed on the compiler side. > I would find this patch OK even if it fixes only the TYPE_CODE_ARRAY. I'm a little hesitant, still (but not objecting!). It it was a one-liner, I'd be less reluctant, but I just want to make sure that the improvement is worth the code we're adding. Yes, the output is more accurate, but is it really all that bad to be missing the `const'? > > + make_cv_type (1, TYPE_VOLATILE (el_type), el_type, 0); > ^ NULL? > I would find NULL for a pointer parameter more readable. I agree. -- Joel