From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30211 invoked by alias); 26 Sep 2008 22:15:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 30202 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Sep 2008 22:15:14 -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; Fri, 26 Sep 2008 22:14:36 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B21A42A96F7; Fri, 26 Sep 2008 18:14:34 -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 walzFNbcZIw4; Fri, 26 Sep 2008 18:14:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A7782A96F6; Fri, 26 Sep 2008 18:14:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7ABD5E7ACD; Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:14:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 22:15:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Jan Kratochvil , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Tobias Burnus , Ulrich Weigand , Jim Blandy , jimb@codesourcery.com Subject: Re: [patch] static_kind -> bit0, bit1 [Re: [gdb] Fortran dynamic arrays] Message-ID: <20080926221432.GD3814@adacore.com> References: <20080818111120.GE16894@adacore.com> <200808181553.m7IFrG3w005270@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> <48A59B3C.9050801@net-b.de> <20080818111120.GE16894@adacore.com> <20080907115637.GA12939@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20080919060336.GD3651@adacore.com> <20080922151909.GA12274@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20080924191504.GA3613@adacore.com> <20080926125145.GA21287@caradoc.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080926125145.GA21287@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: 2008-09/txt/msg00528.txt.bz2 > In my opinion, we should go with Jan's patch. I don't think that > artificial is a discriminant; it has a clear meaning as a flag and > nothing to do with the location or the loc union. Agreed. Just a thought (independent from this patch): If this is a flag, should we try moving this flag up together with the rest of the flags? -- Joel