This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [patch] physname regression: Non-matching type false breakpoint
- From: Pedro Alves <pedro at codesourcery dot com>
- To: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Cc: Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>
- Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 10:21:30 +0100
- Subject: Re: [patch] physname regression: Non-matching type false breakpoint
- References: <20110605153419.GA14873@host1.jankratochvil.net>
On Sunday 05 June 2011 16:34:19, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> + /* The strchr check is there if any types were specified verify the single
> + found found parameter types really match those specified by user in COPY.
> + */
I have trouble parsing this sentence. The "The strchr check is there"
part doesn't glue nicely with the other part to my ears. I suggest
dropping it. Is a comma or colon missing between specified/verify,
perhaps? Is double-"found" a typo? Hmm, looking at the code,
how about this alternative comment?
+ /* If we found a single field with that name, and we were not given
+ a specific overload instance in COPY, accept the field, if it's
+ really a method. */
+ if (i1 == 1 && strchr (copy, '(') == NULL)
--
Pedro Alves