From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10469 invoked by alias); 25 Apr 2012 17:18:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 10457 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Apr 2012 17:18:53 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL 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; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:18:40 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B4511C6E5B; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:18:40 -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 uqdyzwUT+k33; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:18:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2B951C6BB2; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:18:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 04B0D145616; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 10:18:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 18:12:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] microMIPS support Message-ID: <20120425171818.GK10958@adacore.com> References: <20120425152847.GG10958@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: 2012-04/txt/msg00874.txt.bz2 > So until (or really unless) somebody comes with the requirement to > support both the microMIPS and the MIPS16 ASE at a time in a single debug > session let's keep this simple. OK, I'm sold :). > Actually I keep getting confused about the style expected for aggregate > types, especially in the context of initialisers. So for example is this > correct: [...] > or should that be written yet differently? What if that's defined at the > file scope: Yeah, I am not sure what the proper kosher style would be in this case, or if this has been discussed and decided, but I would tend to say that the same style should be used regardless of scope. -- Joel