From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30238 invoked by alias); 13 Nov 2012 19:55:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 30230 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Nov 2012 19:55:07 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS 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, 13 Nov 2012 19:54:59 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qADJswLt031420 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 14:54:58 -0500 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-26.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.26]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qADJss8n016413 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 13 Nov 2012 14:54:57 -0500 Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 19:55:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Tom Tromey Cc: Siddhesh Poyarekar , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Pedro Alves Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] bitpos expansion summary reloaded Message-ID: <20121113195453.GA22320@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20120930065211.GA21118@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20121003184155.03dceed4@spoyarek> <20121003195627.GA17283@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20121004071314.GA4292@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20121021130546.02ea680c@spoyarek> <20121025155412.GA16619@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20121025222123.68c7b118@spoyarek> <20121106200117.GA4110@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20121107134742.GA26600@host2.jankratochvil.net> <87ip9970cg.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87ip9970cg.fsf@fleche.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: 2012-11/txt/msg00336.txt.bz2 On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 20:46:07 +0100, Tom Tromey wrote: > Jan> BTW it would be all sure much easier with C++ and its operator > Jan> overloading. > > Yeah, but I think it is clear now that this will never happen. > We just have to make the best of the tools we do have. Pedro told me there were some reasons in the thread but I do not remember any valid one, sizes were made invalid. I will have to re-read the threads again. There are only abstract opinions that there may exist systems not supporting this or that but no valid system. Developing GDB is not constructive this way, it is still about repeated catching of crashes from forgotten destructor or exception here and there, the question of next crash is not if but when. Regards, Jan