From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26006 invoked by alias); 18 Aug 2008 13:20:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 25995 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Aug 2008 13:20:54 -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, 18 Aug 2008 13:20:04 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E01C983A9; Mon, 18 Aug 2008 13:20:02 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C63F98337; Mon, 18 Aug 2008 13:20:02 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KV4eQ-0002TB-01; Mon, 18 Aug 2008 09:20:02 -0400 Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 13:20:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFA: shrink main_type Message-ID: <20080818132001.GA9434@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Joel Brobecker , Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20080818130009.GM16894@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080818130009.GM16894@adacore.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: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-08/txt/msg00480.txt.bz2 On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 05:00:09PM +0400, Joel Brobecker wrote: > /* Flags about this type. This field appears at this location > because it packs nicely here. */ > > ENUM_BITFIELD(type_flag_value) flags : 18; If you're going to do this anyway, why not make them individual bitfields? Would that be too disruptive? I don't think it's particularly useful to change the type of this to the enum since we don't put enum values in it, just bitwise combination of them. (Isn't that invalid in C++?) And if you want to repack the upper/lower bounds fields, I bet they can move into type_specific. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery