From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29610 invoked by alias); 4 Apr 2002 04:11:50 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 29601 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2002 04:11:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (128.2.145.6) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Apr 2002 04:11:48 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 16sybG-0002aU-00; Wed, 03 Apr 2002 23:11:50 -0500 Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 20:11:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Jim Blandy Cc: Jim Ingham , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Trivial fix in value_sub Message-ID: <20020403231150.A9816@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Jim Blandy , Jim Ingham , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <775EF184-4760-11D6-A9CC-000393540DDC@apple.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00095.txt.bz2 On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 10:54:57PM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote: > > Jim Ingham writes: > > So... I don't think you should keep the size at 0. This seems like > > gdb is just silently ignoring the " - x" part of what they typed, and > > you should always be explicit about what you have done. But if you > > think an error is more appropriate, I am fine with that... > > Oh, no, I didn't mean to suggest that zero was the right size to use; > I agree with you completely that that would be pretty confusing. > > Your story is pretty amazing --- I would never have guessed that > people actually *use* the sizeof (struct incomplete) == 1 behavior! I > think it is much more common for people to be unaware that the type is > incomplete; if this hunch is correct, then the behavior your toolbox > folks love will be very confusing. I think an error for arithmetic on > any incomplete type other than (void *) is the right thing. FWIW, I agree. If we don't know what the size is, we should say so; having the behavior change based on whether a version of the implementation (which might have debug symbols) is loaded would be baffling. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer