From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-73550-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 8210 invoked by alias); 4 Jun 2010 21:47:16 -0000
Received: (qmail 8193 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Jun 2010 21:47:16 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.8 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Jun 2010 21:47:06 +0000
Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12])	by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o54Ll4Lk023507	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK)	for <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>; Fri, 4 Jun 2010 17:47:04 -0400
Received: from host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1])	by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o54Ll2uJ017162	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);	Fri, 4 Jun 2010 17:47:04 -0400
Received: from host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])	by host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o54Ll1EG008976;	Fri, 4 Jun 2010 23:47:01 +0200
Received: (from jkratoch@localhost)	by host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id o54Ll1JA008974;	Fri, 4 Jun 2010 23:47:01 +0200
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 21:47:00 -0000
From: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
To: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: RFC: partially fix empty DW_OP_piece
Message-ID: <20100604214701.GA8886@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net>
References: <m3vdars0hy.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20100514223521.GA3975@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <m3d3wa7lio.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20100602185354.GA11125@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <m3ocft2o6q.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20100603174558.GA22100@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <m3y6euvcsf.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20100604191045.GA32716@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <m3k4qetr45.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <m3k4qetr45.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-12-10)
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2010-06/txt/msg00143.txt.bz2

On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 23:39:06 +0200, Tom Tromey wrote:
> >>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> Jan> OK, that probably means there really must remain a way to convert
> Jan> `inferior dependent struct value' into an `inferior independent
> Jan> struct value'.
> 
> Yeah, at least as far as the bounds are concerned.  IMO.
> 
> The current gdb model is sort of mixed.  A struct value is a snapshot of
> some bit of state.  But, when printing a value, we might refer to other
> state in the target.  For example:
> 
>     struct x { char *name; };

Understood but I find it more wrong in (plain) C as it has no `string' type.

The same problem happens for other data types being PythonPrettyPrinted.


Thanks,
Jan