From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13631 invoked by alias); 20 Sep 2010 16:08:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 13605 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Sep 2010 16:08:52 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 16:08:48 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B7232BAAFD; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 12:08:46 -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 LwvHGEzGon8Q; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 12:08:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A5AF2BAAD7; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 12:08:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 11F15F599F; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 12:08:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 18:41:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA/commit] DWARF: Add support for DW_TAG_constant DIEs Message-ID: <20100920160844.GN3845@adacore.com> References: <1284668546-25877-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <20100919173918.GA29737@host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100919173918.GA29737@host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2010-09/txt/msg00347.txt.bz2 > For add_partial_symbol - why do you make DW_TAG_constant different from > DW_TAG_variable? DW_TAG_variable would handle more cases there. As explained in my original email - I felt at the time that this would make the DW_TAG_variable case overly complicated, whereas I did not see why DW_TAG_constant would need more than what I added. If we prefer to merge the two, I'm happy too. I just wanted to help keep things as simple as possible. What do you think? I'm sorry about the two blunders last week. The consequence of trying to do too much at the same time while trying to get ready for yet another trip. I'm back, now, so I will try to focus a little better. -- Joel