Re: [rfa] space reduction in gdbtypes.h

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>]

> Andrew C says:
> 
> 
>>  #define BOUND_BY_REF_IN_REG          2
>>  #define BOUND_BY_VALUE_IN_REG        1
>>  #define BOUND_SIMPLE                 0
>> -  int upper_bound_type;
>> -  int lower_bound_type;
>> +  int upper_bound_type : 4;
>> +  int lower_bound_type : 4;
>> 
>> Hmm, doesn't this part scream ENUM?
> 
> 
> I agree, it does, but I wanted to patch one thing at a time,
> so I left it as an int.

Try a different ordering of the changes:

- make the cleanups first (no functional change)
- make the functional change last (here reducing the size of the gdb 
footprint)

>> Without that the packing is unsafe: 
>> adding an extra variant that overflows the field won't be detected; 
>> compilers capable of checking enum assignments won't do anything useful.
> 
> 
> Well, the definitions are right next to the use, which would make
> it obvious.

People have this habit of taking shortcuts when ever possible ->  it's 
never obvious :-(

> Would you like me to go ahead and make this an enum right now?

Yes please.  Macro's are bad m'kay.

Andrew