From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-46114-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 2645 invoked by alias); 15 Nov 2006 09:35:01 -0000
Received: (qmail 2626 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Nov 2006 09:35:00 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 09:34:55 +0000
Received: (qmail 6184 invoked from network); 15 Nov 2006 09:34:54 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ?172.16.64.38?) (vladimir@127.0.0.2)   by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 15 Nov 2006 09:34:54 -0000
From: Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>
To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: MI and anonymous unions
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 09:35:00 -0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;   charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200611151234.41560.vladimir@codesourcery.com>
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
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: 2006-11/txt/msg00118.txt.bz2


I've noticed that MI does not work nice with anonymous unions. Consider this 
structure:

    struct S
    {
         union {
                int i;
                int j;
          };
    };

Traversing it with MI eventually gives:

  -var-list-children V.public
   ^done,numchild="1",children=[child={name="V.public.",exp="",numchild="1",
                 type="union {...}"}]
    (gdb)
    -var-list-children V.public.
    ^done,numchild="1",children=[
         child={name="V.public..public",exp="public",numchild="2"}]
     (gdb)
     -var-list-children V.public..public
     .....

Although this kinda works, I'm pretty sure UI won't be happy about empty 
expression for a variable object, and if you have two anonymous unions, you 
can't even address them.

How about using some unique identifier for variable objects corresponding for 
anonymous unions? Say "@N"?

- Volodya