From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4286 invoked by alias); 7 Mar 2012 19:16:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 4277 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Mar 2012 19:16:26 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.7 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; Wed, 07 Mar 2012 19:16:11 +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 (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q27JFw0r000416 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 7 Mar 2012 14:15:58 -0500 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-19.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.19]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q27JFste004774 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 7 Mar 2012 14:15:57 -0500 Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 19:16:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] typedef-checking for CU relative vs. absolute offsets [Re: RFC: problem with DW_OP_GNU_deref_type and dwarf's get_base_type callback] Message-ID: <20120307191554.GA30882@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20120305223429.GM2867@adacore.com> <20120307170940.GA22619@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120307171249.GB22619@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120307190703.GR2853@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120307190703.GR2853@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) 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: 2012-03/txt/msg00239.txt.bz2 On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 20:07:03 +0100, Joel Brobecker wrote: > Or maybe you really want different field names > to make the writer aware of which offset he really has. Exactly. > In that case, > perhaps field names that are a little more explicit? For instance: > "rel_off" and "abs_off" (for "relative" vs "absolute")? Not so fine with rel vs. abs (I find the sect vs. CU distinction more clear, both are relative) and not so fine with _off (too long). But I do not mind the naming. Regards, Jan