Re: [rfa] ENUM_BITFIELD, here it comes again

Jim Blandy
2003-08-20T07:52:52Z

Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec@shout.net> writes:
> Here we go again ... a new version of my ENUM_BITFIELD patch.
> +/* Classification types for this symbol. These should be taken as "advisory
> + only", since if gdb can't easily figure out a classification it simply
> + selects mst_unknown. It may also have to guess when it can't figure out
> + which is a better match between two types (mst_data versus mst_bss) for
> + example. Since the minimal symbol info is sometimes derived from the
> + BFD library's view of a file, we need to live with what information bfd
> + supplies. */

Some of this comment needs to stay in the struct, and some needs to
stick with the enum.