This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] PR 11530: Fix and test case
- From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- To: "Pierre Muller" <pierre dot muller at ics-cnrs dot unistra dot fr>
- Cc: "'Jan Kratochvil'" <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>, <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 11:29:34 -0600
- Subject: Re: [RFA] PR 11530: Fix and test case
- References: <001b01cae7e5$f46d47d0$dd47d770$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> <20100430081959.GB12043@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <15700.946111656$1272633144@news.gmane.org>
- Reply-to: tromey at redhat dot com
>>>>> "Pierre" == Pierre Muller <pierre.muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> writes:
Pierre> I just want to fix the simple case in which there is
Pierre> no, name conflict.
It seems pretty reasonable to me.
Pierre> With my patch, GDB will find the first instance
Pierre> that matches the field name, but I don't even know
Pierre> if the ordering given by the debug information necessarily
Pierre> follows the definition order in the source!
I skimmed this part of the DWARF 4 spec (5.5.6 Data Member Entries) but
I didn't see any such requirement.
I'm not too concerned about this.
Pierre> Anyhow, this patch is only useful for sizeof (),
Pierre> not for printing of the value itself, which
Pierre> was already working...
That is interesting. Why does it work in one case but not the other?
Tom