From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7837 invoked by alias); 9 Feb 2012 15:16:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 7827 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Feb 2012 15:16:41 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 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; Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:16:29 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3AD21C651B; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 10:16:28 -0500 (EST) 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 8jRUWDzY2PPE; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 10:16:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 731F81C6516; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 10:16:27 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id CAF22145615; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 19:16:21 +0400 (RET) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:16:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [no-commit-intention] Naive unnamed fields for main_type [Re: [patch] Fix gdb-gdb.py for flds_bnds copy-pastes] Message-ID: <20120209151621.GB3474@adacore.com> References: <20120209092727.GA2664@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120209093119.GA2722@host2.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120209093119.GA2722@host2.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: 2012-02/txt/msg00145.txt.bz2 > I naively tried first to just use unnamed field which makes everything great: Hmmm, true! This flds_bnds union has been bugging me (when debugging) pretty much ever since it was introduced. Personally, I don't know what the obstacles are for switching to C99 (technical, FSF policy?). For this particular issue, I feel that it would not exist if struct main_type was a C++ class. So that could be another way out of that annoying union. (thinking aloud) -- Joel