From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8707 invoked by alias); 23 May 2011 15:47:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 8695 invoked by uid 22791); 23 May 2011 15:47:38 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mel.act-europe.fr (HELO mel.act-europe.fr) (194.98.77.210) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 23 May 2011 15:47:24 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-smtp.eu.adacore.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46E05CB0310; Mon, 23 May 2011 17:47:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mel.act-europe.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.eu.adacore.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dciNeXaEs8gL; Mon, 23 May 2011 17:47:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ulanbator.act-europe.fr (ulanbator.act-europe.fr [10.10.1.67]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mel.act-europe.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 513A5CB023D; Mon, 23 May 2011 17:47:20 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] aix: add support for dwarf2. Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Tristan Gingold In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 15:47:00 -0000 Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <1CCF3FAE-FA21-4D74-A709-91CE74A47EF8@adacore.com> References: <1306146544-3925-1-git-send-email-gingold@adacore.com> <1306146544-3925-4-git-send-email-gingold@adacore.com> To: Tom Tromey X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-05/txt/msg00534.txt.bz2 On May 23, 2011, at 5:42 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: > Tom> I don't like this approach, because it requires some non-obvious code > Tom> synchronization between this struct and dwarf2read. > > No, I'm pretty wrong here. Reordering the struct would indeed cause > problems, because all the fields have the same type -- but this is also > not a very likely transformation. Adding or removing a field should be > ok, which is what matters. I don't think this is such a big deal after > all. Ok, thank you for reconsidering your note. That's nice. Tristan.