TYPE_CODE (type) = TYPE_CODE_METHOD;
}
-/* Return a typename for a struct/union/enum type
- without the tag qualifier. If the type has a NULL name,
- NULL is returned. */
+/* Return a typename for a struct/union/enum type without "struct ",
+ "union ", or "enum ". If the type has a NULL name, return NULL. */
char *
type_name_no_tag (type)
register const struct type *type;
{
- register char *name;
+ if (TYPE_TAG_NAME (type) != NULL)
+ return TYPE_TAG_NAME (type);
- if ((name = TYPE_NAME (type)) != NULL)
- {
- switch (TYPE_CODE (type))
- {
- case TYPE_CODE_STRUCT:
- if(!strncmp (name, "struct ", 7))
- {
- name += 7;
- }
- break;
- case TYPE_CODE_UNION:
- if(!strncmp (name, "union ", 6))
- {
- name += 6;
- }
- break;
- case TYPE_CODE_ENUM:
- if(!strncmp (name, "enum ", 5))
- {
- name += 5;
- }
- break;
- default: /* To avoid -Wall warnings */
- break;
- }
- }
- return (name);
+ /* Is there code which expects this to return the name if there is no
+ tag name? My guess is that this is mainly used for C++ in cases where
+ the two will always be the same. */
+ return TYPE_NAME (type);
}
/* Lookup a primitive type named NAME.
return (SYMBOL_TYPE (sym));
}
-/* Given a type TYPE, lookup the type of the component of type named
- NAME.
- If NOERR is nonzero, return zero if NAME is not suitably defined. */
+/* Given a type TYPE, lookup the type of the component of type named NAME.
+
+ TYPE can be either a struct or union, or a pointer or reference to a struct or
+ union. If it is a pointer or reference, its target type is automatically used.
+ Thus '.' and '->' are interchangable, as specified for the definitions of the
+ expression element types STRUCTOP_STRUCT and STRUCTOP_PTR.
+
+ If NOERR is nonzero, return zero if NAME is not suitably defined.
+ If NAME is the name of a baseclass type, return that type. */
struct type *
lookup_struct_elt_type (type, name, noerr)
check_stub_type (type);
+#if 0
+ /* FIXME: This change put in by Michael seems incorrect for the case where
+ the structure tag name is the same as the member name. I.E. when doing
+ "ptype bell->bar" for "struct foo { int bar; int foo; } bell;"
+ Disabled by fnf. */
+ {
+ char *typename;
+
+ typename = type_name_no_tag (type);
+ if (typename != NULL && STREQ (typename, name))
+ return type;
+ }
+#endif
+
for (i = TYPE_NFIELDS (type) - 1; i >= TYPE_N_BASECLASSES (type); i--)
{
char *t_field_name = TYPE_FIELD_NAME (type, i);
{
struct type *t;
- t = lookup_struct_elt_type (TYPE_BASECLASS (type, i), name, 0);
+ t = lookup_struct_elt_type (TYPE_BASECLASS (type, i), name, noerr);
if (t != NULL)
{
return t;
return (struct type *)-1; /* For lint */
}
-/* This function is really horrible, but to avoid it, there would need
- to be more filling in of forward references. */
+/* If possible, make the vptr_fieldno and vptr_basetype fields of TYPE
+ valid. Callers should be aware that in some cases (for example,
+ the type or one of its baseclasses is a stub type and we are
+ debugging a .o file), this function will not be able to find the virtual
+ function table pointer, and vptr_fieldno will remain -1 and vptr_basetype
+ will remain NULL. */
void
fill_in_vptr_fieldno (type)
struct type *type;
{
+ check_stub_type (type);
+
if (TYPE_VPTR_FIELDNO (type) < 0)
{
int i;
- for (i = 1; i < TYPE_N_BASECLASSES (type); i++)
+
+ /* We must start at zero in case the first (and only) baseclass is
+ virtual (and hence we cannot share the table pointer). */
+ for (i = 0; i < TYPE_N_BASECLASSES (type); i++)
{
fill_in_vptr_fieldno (TYPE_BASECLASS (type, i));
if (TYPE_VPTR_FIELDNO (TYPE_BASECLASS (type, i)) >= 0)
if (TYPE_FLAGS(type) & TYPE_FLAG_STUB)
{
char* name = type_name_no_tag (type);
+ /* FIXME: shouldn't we separately check the TYPE_NAME and the
+ TYPE_TAG_NAME, and look in STRUCT_NAMESPACE and/or VAR_NAMESPACE
+ as appropriate? (this code was written before TYPE_NAME and
+ TYPE_TAG_NAME were separate). */
struct symbol *sym;
if (name == NULL)
{