Re: info types question

["Stefan Burström" <f94sbu@efd.lth.se>]

Hello Daniel

On 2005-11-22, you wrote:

>> The former I guess doesn't really matter, but the later really defines
>> int to be an unsigned 64 bit type. Which cannot be what is desired?
>> Of course I can ignore all types defined int libgcc2.c but I'd like to
>> find out the 'logic' behind this.
>
> These probably indicate "typedefs" without a name, probably definitions
> of base types.

I see.I guess this is just the way things are then? Or is there a way for
gdb to figure out if this is a basic type to make sure that it is indicated
in the output?
The reason for this is that I'd like to be able to resolve types into their
basic types when I dump variables in my frontend. Eg,

typedef char * STRPTR;
STRPTR mystring;

Would allow me to print the mystring variable as a real string since I can
find out that the type of mystring really is char *.

Btw, the mi output of info types is broken.Only the name is output, and not
the type. Is this a known issue?

regards,
Stefan Burstrom