From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24523 invoked by alias); 5 Jun 2008 20:08:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 24514 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Jun 2008 20:08:30 -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; Thu, 05 Jun 2008 20:08:11 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEC3198371 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 20:08:08 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61F0B9809F for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 20:08:08 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1K4Lkl-0000gM-GJ for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2008 16:08:07 -0400 Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 20:08:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] Patch to limit field name completion candidates Message-ID: <20080605200807.GJ25085@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20080605170952.GJ29085@caradoc.them.org> <20080605194553.GG25085@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-06/txt/msg00069.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 02:03:10PM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote: > Daniel> Safe, yes. That's not the failure mode I was worried about. I'm > Daniel> wondering if we will ever error out before we reduce the COMPLETE. > Daniel> But it seems to work so far. > > In that case, nothing will call mark_struct_expression, and so the > completion machinery will not attempt field name completion. Right. But this would appear to be a bug from the user's point of view. We'll just call it a hypothetical limitation of the implementation :-) -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery