From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10571 invoked by alias); 18 Dec 2009 14:17:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 10563 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Dec 2009 14:17:49 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:17:44 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CE7710CF8; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:17:42 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F23621078E; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:17:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NLdeG-0004iU-JO; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:17:40 -0500 Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:17:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Vladimir Prus , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFA: unbreak typedefed bitfield Message-ID: <20091218141740.GA18065@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Joel Brobecker , Vladimir Prus , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <200912181541.30891.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <20091218130612.GD2788@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091218130612.GD2788@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2009-12/txt/msg00253.txt.bz2 On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 05:06:12PM +0400, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > --- a/gdb/value.c > > +++ b/gdb/value.c > > @@ -1873,6 +1873,7 @@ value_primitive_field (struct value *arg1, int offset, > > > > CHECK_TYPEDEF (arg_type); > > type = TYPE_FIELD_TYPE (arg_type, fieldno); > > + check_typedef (type); > > > > /* Handle packed fields */ > > Looks OK to me (you forgot the ChangeLog entry, btw). What does this do? CHECK_TYPEDEF side-effects its argument; check_typedef will leave its argument as a TYPE_CODE_TYPEDEF. I think it fills in some other fields in the typedef, is that what matters here? It's unusual to see check_typedef without an assignment. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery