[PUSHED/OBVIOUS] Fix base class function call

[PUSHED/OBVIOUS] Fix base class function call

[Christian Biesinger via gdb-patches]

This was a typo introduced in f6ac5f3d63e03a81c4ff3749aba234961cc9090e.

Found by looking through NetBSD's GDB patches:
https://github.com/NetBSD/pkgsrc-wip/blob/master/gdb-netbsd/patches/patch-gdb_sparc-nat.h

This patch can't be tested on Linux because Linux does not use the
sparc_target template.

gdb/ChangeLog:

2020-02-05  Christian Biesinger  <cbiesinger@google.com>

	* sparc-nat.h (struct sparc_target) <xfer_partial>: Fix base class
	function call.

Change-Id: I4fa88cbdc365efe89b84cc0619b60db38718d9ce
---
 gdb/sparc-nat.h | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/gdb/sparc-nat.h b/gdb/sparc-nat.h
index 1dbdd80b5e..d07bd86d03 100644
--- a/gdb/sparc-nat.h
+++ b/gdb/sparc-nat.h
@@ -75,8 +75,8 @@ struct sparc_target : public BaseTarget
       return sparc_xfer_wcookie (object, annex, readbuf, writebuf,
 				 offset, len, xfered_len);
 
-    return BaseTarget (object, annex, readbuf, writebuf,
-		       offset, len, xfered_len);
+    return BaseTarget::xfer_partial (object, annex, readbuf, writebuf,
+				     offset, len, xfered_len);
   }
 };
 
-- 
2.25.0.341.g760bfbb309-goog

Pushed to gdb-9-branch: [PUSHED/OBVIOUS] Fix base class function call

[Joel Brobecker]

Hi Christian (and Simon),

On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 11:52:57AM -0600, Christian Biesinger via gdb-patches wrote:
> This was a typo introduced in f6ac5f3d63e03a81c4ff3749aba234961cc9090e.
> 
> Found by looking through NetBSD's GDB patches:
> https://github.com/NetBSD/pkgsrc-wip/blob/master/gdb-netbsd/patches/patch-gdb_sparc-nat.h
> 
> This patch can't be tested on Linux because Linux does not use the
> sparc_target template.
> 
> gdb/ChangeLog:
> 
> 2020-02-05  Christian Biesinger  <cbiesinger@google.com>
> 
> 	* sparc-nat.h (struct sparc_target) <xfer_partial>: Fix base class
> 	function call.

As a user stumbled onto the error that this commit fixes, and the correction
is indeed quite obvious, I created a new PR for this issue, and then
backported the patch to the gdb-9-branch:

    https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26029

> 
> Change-Id: I4fa88cbdc365efe89b84cc0619b60db38718d9ce
> ---
>  gdb/sparc-nat.h | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/gdb/sparc-nat.h b/gdb/sparc-nat.h
> index 1dbdd80b5e..d07bd86d03 100644
> --- a/gdb/sparc-nat.h
> +++ b/gdb/sparc-nat.h
> @@ -75,8 +75,8 @@ struct sparc_target : public BaseTarget
>        return sparc_xfer_wcookie (object, annex, readbuf, writebuf,
>  				 offset, len, xfered_len);
>  
> -    return BaseTarget (object, annex, readbuf, writebuf,
> -		       offset, len, xfered_len);
> +    return BaseTarget::xfer_partial (object, annex, readbuf, writebuf,
> +				     offset, len, xfered_len);
>    }
>  };
>  
> -- 
> 2.25.0.341.g760bfbb309-goog

-- 
Joel

Re: Pushed to gdb-9-branch: [PUSHED/OBVIOUS] Fix base class function call

[Christian Biesinger]

On Sat, May 23, 2020, 11:31 Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com> wrote:

> Hi Christian (and Simon),
>
> On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 11:52:57AM -0600, Christian Biesinger via
> gdb-patches wrote:
> > This was a typo introduced in f6ac5f3d63e03a81c4ff3749aba234961cc9090e.
> >
> > Found by looking through NetBSD's GDB patches:
> >
> https://github.com/NetBSD/pkgsrc-wip/blob/master/gdb-netbsd/patches/patch-gdb_sparc-nat.h
> >
> > This patch can't be tested on Linux because Linux does not use the
> > sparc_target template.
> >
> > gdb/ChangeLog:
> >
> > 2020-02-05  Christian Biesinger  <cbiesinger@google.com>
> >
> >       * sparc-nat.h (struct sparc_target) <xfer_partial>: Fix base class
> >       function call.
>
> As a user stumbled onto the error that this commit fixes, and the
> correction
> is indeed quite obvious, I created a new PR for this issue, and then
> backported the patch to the gdb-9-branch:
>
>     https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26029


Thanks Joel! I had completely forgotten that I wrote that patch.


> >
> > Change-Id: I4fa88cbdc365efe89b84cc0619b60db38718d9ce
> > ---
> >  gdb/sparc-nat.h | 4 ++--
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/gdb/sparc-nat.h b/gdb/sparc-nat.h
> > index 1dbdd80b5e..d07bd86d03 100644
> > --- a/gdb/sparc-nat.h
> > +++ b/gdb/sparc-nat.h
> > @@ -75,8 +75,8 @@ struct sparc_target : public BaseTarget
> >        return sparc_xfer_wcookie (object, annex, readbuf, writebuf,
> >                                offset, len, xfered_len);
> >
> > -    return BaseTarget (object, annex, readbuf, writebuf,
> > -                    offset, len, xfered_len);
> > +    return BaseTarget::xfer_partial (object, annex, readbuf, writebuf,
> > +                                  offset, len, xfered_len);
> >    }
> >  };
> >
> > --
> > 2.25.0.341.g760bfbb309-goog
>
> --
> Joel
>

Re: Pushed to gdb-9-branch: [PUSHED/OBVIOUS] Fix base class function call

[Simon Marchi]

On 2020-05-23 12:31 p.m., Joel Brobecker wrote:
> Hi Christian (and Simon),
> 
> On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 11:52:57AM -0600, Christian Biesinger via gdb-patches wrote:
>> This was a typo introduced in f6ac5f3d63e03a81c4ff3749aba234961cc9090e.
>>
>> Found by looking through NetBSD's GDB patches:
>> https://github.com/NetBSD/pkgsrc-wip/blob/master/gdb-netbsd/patches/patch-gdb_sparc-nat.h
>>
>> This patch can't be tested on Linux because Linux does not use the
>> sparc_target template.
>>
>> gdb/ChangeLog:
>>
>> 2020-02-05  Christian Biesinger  <cbiesinger@google.com>
>>
>> 	* sparc-nat.h (struct sparc_target) <xfer_partial>: Fix base class
>> 	function call.
> 
> As a user stumbled onto the error that this commit fixes, and the correction
> is indeed quite obvious, I created a new PR for this issue, and then
> backported the patch to the gdb-9-branch:
> 
>     https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26029

Good thing you were proactive, otherwise it wouldn't have made it in the 9.2 release!

Simon

Re: Pushed to gdb-9-branch: [PUSHED/OBVIOUS] Fix base class function call

[Joel Brobecker]

> > As a user stumbled onto the error that this commit fixes, and the
> > correction
> > is indeed quite obvious, I created a new PR for this issue, and then
> > backported the patch to the gdb-9-branch:
> >
> >     https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26029
> 
> 
> Thanks Joel! I had completely forgotten that I wrote that patch.

Credits to Simon who pointed me to the patch when a user reported
that issue. From there, I was happy to do the easy part of backporting
the patch :).

-- 
Joel