From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-53802-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 6367 invoked by alias); 30 Jan 2008 21:55:08 -0000
Received: (qmail 6357 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Jan 2008 21:55:08 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from ics.u-strasbg.fr (HELO ics.u-strasbg.fr) (130.79.112.250)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:54:48 +0000
Received: from ICSMULLER (unknown [130.79.244.150]) 	by ics.u-strasbg.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 096D718701C; 	Wed, 30 Jan 2008 23:01:07 +0100 (CET)
From: "Pierre Muller" <muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr>
To: "'Doug Evans'" <dje@sebabeach.org>, 	<gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
References: <20080130172852.4CFD413EC2@sebabeach.org>
In-Reply-To: <20080130172852.4CFD413EC2@sebabeach.org>
Subject: RE: [RFA] BINOP_DIV and ptyp command
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 22:58:00 -0000
Message-ID: <000601c8638a$ba92aaf0$2fb800d0$@u-strasbg.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; 	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Content-Language: en-us
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2008-01/txt/msg00834.txt.bz2

Doug, I like your patch but
> +  else if (TYPE_CODE (type1) == TYPE_CODE_BOOL
> +	   && TYPE_CODE (type2) == TYPE_CODE_BOOL)
> +    {
> +      switch (op)
> +	{
> +	case BINOP_BITWISE_AND:
> +	case BINOP_BITWISE_IOR:
> +	case BINOP_BITWISE_XOR:
> +        case BINOP_EQUAL:
> +        case BINOP_NOTEQUAL:
> +	  break;
> +	default:
> +	  error (_("Invalid operation on booleans."));
> +	}

  I would have expected that only 
BINOP_LOGICAL_OR and BINOP_LOGICAL_AND 
are valid for Booleans.
  Am I wrong?

Pierre Muller