This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFA: Switch TYPE_CODE_METHOD to store arguments like TYPE_CODE_FUNCTION
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 06:35:59PM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote:
>
> Minor observation:
>
> In gdbtypes.h, your patch makes the following change to `struct field':
>
> /* Name of field, value or argument.
> - NULL for range bounds and array domains. */
> + NULL for range bounds, array domains, and member function
> + arguments. */
>
> char *name;
>
> Is there any reason this *must* be null? Aren't there times where we
> do know a method's arguments' names, and where we could fill this in?
>
> I guess I'm thinking about the way prototyped function types in C may
> or may not include the names:
>
> typedef int (*foo_t) (int x, int y);
> typedef int (*bar_t) (int, int);
> typedef int (*baz_t) (int x, int);
>
> Is there any analog to this in C++?
Right now, we have two entries for a method. One of them is at
declaration time and comes from the class; the other is at definition
time and comes from the function itself. One is TYPE_CODE_METHOD and
names are not present in the debug info for either stabs or dwarf; the
other is TYPE_CODE_FUNCTION. Until we unify those (some day...) we
won't have the names.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer