From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5985 invoked by alias); 7 Sep 2010 18:59:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 5975 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Sep 2010 18:59:51 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 07 Sep 2010 18:59:48 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o87IxdpQ000743 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 7 Sep 2010 14:59:40 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o87IxdUb022723; Tue, 7 Sep 2010 14:59:39 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o87Ixcmm017286; Tue, 7 Sep 2010 14:59:38 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 255A8379830; Tue, 7 Sep 2010 12:59:38 -0600 (MDT) From: Tom Tromey To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: FYI: change type searching References: <20100904224448.GH28036@caradoc.them.org> Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 17:15:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20100904224448.GH28036@caradoc.them.org> (Daniel Jacobowitz's message of "Sat, 4 Sep 2010 18:44:49 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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/msg00175.txt.bz2 Daniel> Did you test this using GCC 4.5? It appears to regress temargs.exp. Daniel> Specifically, this bit: Nope. >> All of this searching is pointless, though, because types are made >> static, not public. Daniel> I don't know what you mean by this. If you mean in our symbol lists, Daniel> then that's not true; C++ types go in the global list. Oops, sorry about that. I will revert this patch soon, and think up a different approach. Tom