This is the mail archive of the
gdb-prs@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: gdb/1465
- From: David Carlton <carlton at kealia dot com>
- To: chastain at sourceware dot org
- Cc: gdb-prs at sources dot redhat dot com,
- Date: 1 Dec 2003 17:08:01 -0000
- Subject: Re: gdb/1465
- Reply-to: David Carlton <carlton at kealia dot com>
The following reply was made to PR c++/1465; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: David Carlton <carlton@kealia.com>
To: mec.gnu@mindspring.com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain)
Cc: GNATS Filer <gdb-gnats@sources.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: gdb/1465
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 09:05:58 -0800
On 27 Nov 2003 01:28:01 -0000, mec.gnu@mindspring.com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain) said:
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.
All right, STRUCT_DOMAIN it is. I would expect the symbols to be in
both of them, but if they aren't, I don't have any reason not to go
with STRUCT_DOMAIN.
David Carlton
carlton@kealia.com