From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6865 invoked by alias); 29 Aug 2007 18:36:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 6857 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Aug 2007 18:36:51 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 18:36:46 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC23698153; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 18:36:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6588098101; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 18:36:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IQSPD-0002Lt-Bx; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:36:43 -0400 Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 18:36:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Carlos Eduardo Seo , Luis Machado , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] ptype: show members of an unnamed struct inside an union Message-ID: <20070829183643.GA9026@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Joel Brobecker , Carlos Eduardo Seo , Luis Machado , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <46C4D20E.1010703@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20070828171422.GB3874@adacore.com> <46D47155.5000403@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20070828200356.GA3795@adacore.com> <46D4818C.1030001@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20070828203420.GB3795@adacore.com> <20070829025618.GA26311@caradoc.them.org> <20070829043633.GD3795@adacore.com> <20070829163021.GA32337@caradoc.them.org> <20070829183215.GF3795@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070829183215.GF3795@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) 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: 2007-08/txt/msg00519.txt.bz2 On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 11:32:15AM -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote: > Back to the issue at hand, it therefore seems pretty desirable to > enhance the debugger in that case. Unfortunately, I don't think > the proposed patch is correct, because it bases the logic on the > size of the union/struct instead of whether the field is anonymous > or not. Do you agree? Right. I would be happy to treat anonymous unions specially here. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery