From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32099 invoked by alias); 26 Sep 2008 22:20:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 32091 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Sep 2008 22:20:32 -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; Fri, 26 Sep 2008 22:19:53 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D2AC10CF4; Fri, 26 Sep 2008 22:19:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0155810CE6; Fri, 26 Sep 2008 22:19:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KjLfC-0005eV-1B; Fri, 26 Sep 2008 18:19:50 -0400 Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 22:20:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Joel Brobecker Cc: 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: <20080926221950.GA21708@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Joel Brobecker , Jan Kratochvil , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Tobias Burnus , Ulrich Weigand , Jim Blandy , jimb@codesourcery.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> <20080926221432.GD3814@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080926221432.GD3814@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: 2008-09/txt/msg00529.txt.bz2 On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 03:14:32PM -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > 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? Aren't the others on the type? This really is a flag on the field. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery