From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23968 invoked by alias); 11 Feb 2013 18:11:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 23950 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Feb 2013 18:11:46 -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; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 18:11:40 +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 r1BIBdWx020706 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 13:11:39 -0500 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-18.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.18]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r1BIBaX9022306 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 11 Feb 2013 13:11:38 -0500 Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 18:11:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Sergio Durigan Junior Cc: GDB Patches Subject: Re: [PATCH] Handle bitfields inside inner structs for internalvars Message-ID: <20130211181135.GA21169@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20130208204702.GA22467@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20130209073923.GA13418@host2.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: 2013-02/txt/msg00253.txt.bz2 On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 19:05:58 +0100, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: > On Saturday, February 09 2013, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > > 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...) > > According to comments in gdb/value.{c,h}, value_parent is only used iff > the we are dealing with bitfields, so I guess this case is covered > (otherwise it is a bug). Was it a rhetorical question? I expected a future reader may have such a question. I just believed the code was worth some comment, thanks for it. If it were absolutely clear the bug would not happen there in the first place. Thanks, Jan