This is the mail archive of the
gdb-prs@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: gdb/1465
- From: mec dot gnu at mindspring dot com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain)
- To: mec at shout dot net
- Cc: gdb-prs at sources dot redhat dot com,
- Date: 27 Nov 2003 01:28:01 -0000
- Subject: Re: gdb/1465
- Reply-to: mec dot gnu at mindspring dot com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain)
The following reply was made to PR c++/1465; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: mec.gnu@mindspring.com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain)
To: carlton@kealia.com
Cc: gdb-gnats@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: gdb/1465
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:20:06 -0500 (EST)
Hi David,
mec> Another question: v2 searches in VAR_DOMAIN, and v3 searches in
mec> STRUCT_DOMAIN. Why the difference?
dc> Beats me. I think VAR_DOMAIN is better.
Okay, I tried it both ways:
STRUCT_DOMAIN
gcc 2.95.3 -gdwarf-2 works fine
gcc 3.3.2 -gdwarf-2 works fine
VAR_DOMAIN
gcc 2.95.3 -gdwarf-2 finds the namespace symbol
gcc 3.3.2 -gdwarf-2 finds some symbol with TYPE_CODE_FUNC !
So I would like to go with STRUCT_DOMAIN.
Reasons: gnuv3_rtti_type already does it with STRUCT_DOMAIN so
I won't be breaking v3. And I'm pretty sure that STRUCT_DOMAIN
will be okay with v2.
Is that okay with you? I don't really know the whole philosophy
of these class symbols like you do.
Michael C