From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10844 invoked by alias); 3 Jan 2010 17:06:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 10829 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Jan 2010 17:06:18 -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; Sun, 03 Jan 2010 17:06:12 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63B43108B0; Sun, 3 Jan 2010 17:06:05 +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 1346510704; Sun, 3 Jan 2010 17:06:04 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NRTtz-0007Y5-NR; Sun, 03 Jan 2010 12:06:03 -0500 Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 17:06:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Jan Kratochvil , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, gdb@sourceware.org, Vladimir Prus Subject: Re: [patch] Re: Regression: field type preservation: 7.0 -> 7.0.1+HEAD Message-ID: <20100103170603.GA28946@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Joel Brobecker , Jan Kratochvil , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, gdb@sourceware.org, Vladimir Prus References: <20100101184505.GA18391@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <201001021308.19130.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <20100102203022.GA8372@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20100103045717.GZ2788@adacore.com> <20100103054727.GA31207@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20100103060305.GB2788@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100103060305.GB2788@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: 2010-01/txt/msg00044.txt.bz2 On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 10:03:05AM +0400, Joel Brobecker wrote: > That would be fine with me - thanks for doing that. Confirmation from > DanielJ would be nice, though, since he raised concerns about it. > Hopefully all the comments we added will address them. It looks fine to me. I agree with Jan that this bit of our type system is a bad idea; I'd rather TYPE_LENGTH just worked. That's for some other day. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery