From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-56169-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 9857 invoked by alias); 19 May 2008 16:57:53 -0000
Received: (qmail 9849 invoked by uid 22791); 19 May 2008 16:57:53 -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; Mon, 19 May 2008 16:57:33 +0000
Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) 	by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8009E983FE; 	Mon, 19 May 2008 16:57:32 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) 	by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C85F9835A; 	Mon, 19 May 2008 16:57:32 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) 	(envelope-from <drow@caradoc.them.org>) 	id 1Jy8fz-0004XJ-8Y; Mon, 19 May 2008 12:57:31 -0400
Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 20:40:00 -0000
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
To: Ulrich Weigand <uweigand@de.ibm.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [rfc][3/3] Eliminate LOC_BASEREG and LOC_BASEREG_ARG
Message-ID: <20080519165731.GC16848@caradoc.them.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Ulrich Weigand <uweigand@de.ibm.com>, 	gdb-patches@sourceware.org
References: <200805191653.m4JGrSZS016848@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200805191653.m4JGrSZS016848@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11)
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
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: 2008-05/txt/msg00570.txt.bz2

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 06:53:28PM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Removing this also allows us to get rid of the basereg member of the
> aux_value union in struct symbol.  (At which point there is only one
> member of the union remaining.  Should we remove the union?)

IMO, yes.  The remaining union member is probably good for any new
types also.

> Any objections to removing those address classes?

Not from me.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery