From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17467 invoked by alias); 16 Nov 2004 01:13:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 17447 invoked from network); 16 Nov 2004 01:13:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 16 Nov 2004 01:13:16 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iAG1DB09008405 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 20:13:16 -0500 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (to-dhcp51.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.151]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id iAG1DBr25355; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 20:13:11 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4BD4129D8C; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 20:13:03 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4199541C.1070302@gnu.org> Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 01:15:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (X11/20041020) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: METHOD_PTR_*? References: <41912F1E.2000606@gnu.org> <20041109221026.GA10905@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20041109221026.GA10905@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00149.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 03:57:02PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >>Hello, >> >>From value.h: >> >>/* Pointer to member function. Depends on compiler implementation. */ >> >>#define METHOD_PTR_IS_VIRTUAL(ADDR) ((ADDR) & 0x80000000) >>#define METHOD_PTR_FROM_VOFFSET(OFFSET) (0x80000000 + (OFFSET)) >>#define METHOD_PTR_TO_VOFFSET(ADDR) (~0x80000000 & (ADDR)) >> >>It also depends on the underlying architecture - not very 64-bit >>friendly :-/ > > > Yuck! Can it for the moment be moved out of value.h? Andrew > If I'm reading this right, it corresponded to some old compiler's > implementation. But nowadays we fake it in > value_struct_elt_for_reference. This is a bit tricky to untangle, but > I think this could be solved entirely in eval.c (and the one place we > print "virtual" and ditching the remaining bits. I wonder if anything > in the testsuite exercises this? >