This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] Add type support for Ada
- From: Jim Blandy <jimb at redhat dot com>
- To: Aidan Skinner <aidan at velvet dot net>
- Cc: Hilfinger at otisco dot mckusick dot com, ac131313 at redhat dot com, drow at mvista dot com, per at bothner dot com, green at redhat dot com, muller at cerbere dot u- dot strasbg dot fr, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: 02 Oct 2002 13:42:50 -0500
- Subject: Re: [RFA] Add type support for Ada
- References: <20020926040044.I32211@velvet.net> <3D93C161.2070409@redhat.com><vt2k7l7b46m.fsf@zenia.red-bean.com><200209280925.CAA10025@otisco.McKusick.COM><20021001041712.E8933@velvet.net>
Aidan Skinner <aidan@velvet.net> writes:
> Thanks for answering these Paul. :)
>
> > > It looks to me as if the string cleanup stuff is distinct from the
> > > fixed instance stuff. These should be submitted as separate patches.
> >
> > They definitely are logically separate changes.
>
> Yeah, I'll split and resubmit and probably take the opportunity to
> include some more string cleanup stuff, rather than just the bits that
> ada-* reference...
Thanks!
> > > Should base_type use the tortoise-and-hare algorithm to detect cycles?
> >
> > An interesting suggestion. However, there is at least one existing
> > place where GDB doesn't bother. Compare with the following (non-Ada-
>
> I think it's worthwhile doing here, and if it works nicely it can be
> stolen for other places. My next revision of this patch will include
> this.
Great.
> > Umm. Interesting questions. As I recall, I had the impression that
> > a self-referencing range type COULD occur legitimately, but given that was
>
> I think they can, but my current understanding of the gdb type system
> probably bears some resemblence to swiss cheese. ;)
>
> I'll experiment a bit with trying to create one and see what I can find.
>
> > 4 years ago, my memory could be faulty. I suspect these tests were simply
> > bullet-(or segfault)-proofing. Replacing the NULL check at least with
> > an error would probably be a worthy experiment.
>
> Sounds like a plan.
Super. I can't tell whether this was the intention in that code, but
I'd much rather see GDB throw an internal error when it finds
something bogus than return some handy plausible value.