From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14047 invoked by alias); 15 Aug 2012 18:26:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 14018 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Aug 2012 18:25:58 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-vc0-f169.google.com (HELO mail-vc0-f169.google.com) (209.85.220.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 18:25:44 +0000 Received: by vcbfl10 with SMTP id fl10so2010716vcb.0 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 11:25:43 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.58.74.71 with SMTP id r7mr14934184vev.44.1345055143289; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 11:25:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.90.141 with HTTP; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 11:25:43 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87zk5wt3rz.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> References: <20120812200427.GA12561@google.com> <502B93BF.6020802@google.com> <502B94C9.4020607@google.com> <877gt0ujmn.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <87zk5wt3rz.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 18:26:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Merge C++ conversion into trunk (0/6 - Overview) From: Gabriel Dos Reis To: Tom Tromey Cc: Diego Novillo , Richard Guenther , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Lawrence Crowl , bonzini@gnu.org, dj@redhat.com, laurynas.biveinis@gmail.com, gdb@sourceware.org, Keith Seitz Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-08/txt/msg00060.txt.bz2 On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Gaby" == Gabriel Dos Reis writes: > > Tom> I asked Keith to resurrect his patch for this. > > Gaby> Since people are concerned about typing rules, would it > Gaby> be an option for GDB to allow people to input pointer > Gaby> literals with the "p" suffix (or "0p" prefix instead of "0x")? > > I think on the whole I'd rather have one extension instead of two. That is a fair point :-) > > It seems to me that the above would still require extensions in the > overloading code, to deal with conversions from void*; or perhaps some > magic pointer type. > > What I think Keith is going to do is take his patch, change it so that > int->pointer conversions (if the int != 0) are given a different badness > from other conversions (meaning that, in theory, this should only be > chosen as a last resort, and shouldn't interfere with ordinary uses), > and finally add a parameter so that the feature can be disabled. > > I hope this will be acceptable all around. OK, that sounds reasonable. Thanks! -- Gaby