From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9455 invoked by alias); 17 Apr 2012 14:12:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 9445 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Apr 2012 14:12:50 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,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; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:12:38 +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 q3HECbGd003082 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 10:12:37 -0400 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-17.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.17]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q3HECXvn022957 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 17 Apr 2012 10:12:36 -0400 Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:16:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Siddhesh Poyarekar Subject: Re: [commit] Do not rely on FIELD_LOC_KIND_BITPOS being zero Message-ID: <20120417141232.GA6109@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20120417124410.GA15356@host2.jankratochvil.net> <4F8D695E.7070002@redhat.com> <20120417131559.GA25248@host2.jankratochvil.net> <4F8D76B7.90709@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4F8D76B7.90709@redhat.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: 2012-04/txt/msg00473.txt.bz2 On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 15:57:11 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote: > - FIELD_BITPOS (*fp) += DW_UNSND (attr); > + SET_FIELD_BITPOS (*fp, FIELD_BITPOS (*fp) + DW_UNSND (attr)); I do not like this apprach as it misleads the reader that FIELD_BITPOS is newly set here. This is why I did not want to implement such change and just fixed the existing cases. FIELD_BITPOS is being only added to, which the original code said. Now the code is not so clear. I understand it was coded to prevent new code using FIELD_BITPOS (*fp) = newval; but I guess it can happen again but now the contributor will just use: FIELD_BITPOS_LVAL (*fp) = newval; That it gets caught by review is true but particularly with GDB many patches are even never submitted. Regards, Jan