This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: PATCH: gdb/709, C++ static members
- From: David Carlton <carlton at math dot stanford dot edu>
- To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: 18 Sep 2002 10:38:04 -0700
- Subject: Re: PATCH: gdb/709, C++ static members
- References: <20020918154026.GA24749@nevyn.them.org>
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002 11:40:26 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> said:
> David, your earlier patch:
> * values.c (value_static_field): Treat an unresolved location the
> same as a nonexistent symbol. Fix PR gdb/635.
> pointed me in the right direction for this fix. As you may have
> pointed out at the time, read_var_value does basically the same
> thing your fix does in that case. It turns out that there's some
> other cases - this particular one was LOC_CONST_BYTES - where
> read_var_value does the right thing and value_static_field doesn't.
> So I just had value_static_field call read_var_value, which fixes
> your testcase and also a new one I'll post later for gdb/709.
Interesting. I definitely want to think more about whose job it
should be to handle LOC_UNRESOLVED - it seems plausible that
LOC_UNRESOLVED symbols should never be allowed to escape from
lookup_symbol - but now it seems that I have more location classes to
consider. Hmm.
David Carlton
carlton@math.stanford.edu