On 3/28/13, Richard Biener wrote:
> The patch is ok as-is.
Committed.
--
Lawrence Crowl
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> On 3/27/13, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Mar 27, 2013, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
>>> Patch with rename to debug attached.
>>> Tested on x86_64.
>>>
>>>
>>> Add uniform debug dump function names.
>>>
>>>
>>> Add some overloaded functions that pr
On 3/27/13, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mar 27, 2013, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
>> Patch with rename to debug attached.
>> Tested on x86_64.
>>
>>
>> Add uniform debug dump function names.
>>
>>
>> Add some overloaded functions that provide uniform debug dump
>> function names. These names are:
>>
>>
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> On 3/26/13, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
>> On 3/26/13, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Mar 25, 2013 Lawrence Crowl wrote:
>>> > On 3/25/13, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> > > You add a not used new interface. What for?
>>> >
>>> > So that people can
On 3/26/13, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> On 3/26/13, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Mar 25, 2013 Lawrence Crowl wrote:
>> > On 3/25/13, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > > You add a not used new interface. What for?
>> >
>> > So that people can use it.
>> >
>> > > For use from gdb only?
>> >
>> > No, for use
On 3/26/13, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mar 25, 2013 Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> > On 3/25/13, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > You add a not used new interface. What for?
> >
> > So that people can use it.
> >
> > > For use from gdb only?
> >
> > No, for use from both gdb and internally. It is often th
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> On 3/25/13, Richard Biener wrote:
>> You add a not used new interface. What for?
>
> So that people can use it.
>
>> For use from gdb only?
>
> No, for use from both gdb and internally. It is often that folks add
> dumps in various places
> "Lawrence" == Lawrence Crowl writes:
Lawrence> My model is that I should be able to cut and paste an expression
Lawrence> from the source to the debugger and have it work. I concede that
Lawrence> C++ function overload resolution is a hard problem. However, gdb
Lawrence> has a slightly ea
On 3/25/13, Tom Tromey wrote:
>> "Lawrence" == Lawrence Crowl writes:
> Lawrence> This patch is somewhat different from the original plan at
> Lawrence> gcc.gnu.org/wiki/cxx-conversion/debugging-dumps. The reason
> Lawrence> is that gdb has an incomplete implementation of C++ call syntax;
>
On 3/25/13, Richard Biener wrote:
> You add a not used new interface. What for?
So that people can use it.
> For use from gdb only?
No, for use from both gdb and internally. It is often that folks add
dumps in various places while developing/debugging. These functions
support that effort wit
> "Lawrence" == Lawrence Crowl writes:
Lawrence> This patch is somewhat different from the original plan at
Lawrence> gcc.gnu.org/wiki/cxx-conversion/debugging-dumps. The reason
Lawrence> is that gdb has an incomplete implementation of C++ call syntax;
Lawrence> requiring explicit specificat
11 matches
Mail list logo
