From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11842 invoked by alias); 29 Aug 2007 18:48:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 11827 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Aug 2007 18:48:33 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 18:48:29 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6422B2AA7F0; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:48:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 4w99hCHsegGX; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:48:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A4142AA7F2; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:48:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 04517E7B58; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 11:48:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 18:48:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Carlos Eduardo Seo , Luis Machado , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] ptype: show members of an unnamed struct inside an union Message-ID: <20070829184824.GG3795@adacore.com> References: <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> <20070829183643.GA9026@caradoc.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070829183643.GA9026@caradoc.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i 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/msg00521.txt.bz2 > > 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. Cool! Carlos, would you be able to look into that? I promise to review any patch promptly. -- Joel