From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-98385-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 10986 invoked by alias); 9 Feb 2013 07:39:37 -0000
Received: (qmail 10978 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Feb 2013 07:39:36 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.2 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_SPAMHAUS_DROP,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,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; Sat, 09 Feb 2013 07:39:28 +0000
Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25])	by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r197dRX7014803	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK)	for <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>; Sat, 9 Feb 2013 02:39:27 -0500
Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-18.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.18])	by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r197dNSp020789	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);	Sat, 9 Feb 2013 02:39:26 -0500
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2013 07:39:00 -0000
From: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
To: Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj@redhat.com>
Cc: GDB Patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Handle bitfields inside inner structs for internalvars
Message-ID: <20130209073923.GA13418@host2.jankratochvil.net>
References: <m338x9npn5.fsf@redhat.com> <20130208204702.GA22467@host2.jankratochvil.net> <m31ucqjdgv.fsf@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <m31ucqjdgv.fsf@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: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2013-02/txt/msg00235.txt.bz2

On Sat, 09 Feb 2013 05:52:32 +0100, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote:
> On Friday, February 08 2013, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> >> +	if (value_bitsize (toval))
> >> +	  offset += value_offset (value_parent (toval));
> >
> > value_address rather tests for value_parent existence; although value_bitsize
> > is right as value_parent is currently not used elsewhere.
> >
> > 	if (value_parent (toval))
> 
> Do you think it's clearer to use `value_parent' here instead of
> `value_bitsize'?

Choose any way but therefore put there a comment that value_parent is non-NULL
iff value_bitsize is non-zero.

Otherwise I was curious - what to do if value_parent exists but TOVAL is not
a bitfield?  Isn't it a forgotten case?  (It is not but...)


Thanks,
Jan