Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew STUBBS <andrew.stubbs@st.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: PATCH: Problem union comparision in TUI
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 09:51:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <43561685.3010300@st.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <u1x2hc1gh.fsf@gnu.org>

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> IMHO, a better way of fixing this would be to change
> tui_line_or_address to be a struct as follows:
> 
>   /* Structure describing source line or line address */
>   struct tui_line_or_address
>   {
>      unsigned char what
>      union {
>              int line_no;
> 	     CORE_ADDR addr;
> 	   } u;
>   };
> 
> and then fill the `what' member as appropriate and use the right part
> of the union in the comparison.
> 

Yes, that might be true, but that would be a much larger change and I 
would be much less confident of having done it right, plus it will add 
some complexity.

A quick grep says there are 51 references to 'line_or_addr', but there 
are about 15 places other names are declared for this thing so all the 
uses might take a little more tracking down. I suppose changing the name 
of the members and seeing what breaks will be the best way.

Is there any reason for using a union here? It's not like one value is 
float and the other int - both are ints and the fact that you can't tell 
which you are using shows nobody actually uses the distinction (unless I 
have missed something). The union doesn't save any space, nor does it 
make the code any more efficient.

We could just use:

CORE_ADDR line_or_address;

and leave it at that.

Anyway, I am happy to modify the patch to whatever is suggested.

Thanks

Andrew Stubbs


  reply	other threads:[~2005-10-19  9:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-10-17 14:52 Andrew STUBBS
2005-10-17 15:02 ` Andrew STUBBS
2005-10-19  9:15 ` Eli Zaretskii
2005-10-19  9:51   ` Andrew STUBBS [this message]
2005-10-19 12:28     ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-10-19 16:22       ` Andrew STUBBS
2005-10-19 20:03     ` Eli Zaretskii
2005-10-19 20:08       ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-10-19 20:22         ` Mark Kettenis
2005-10-20  8:43         ` Eli Zaretskii
2005-10-20 10:18           ` Andrew STUBBS
2005-10-20 16:20             ` Andrew STUBBS
2005-10-20 17:56               ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-10-20 19:41               ` Eli Zaretskii
2005-10-21 14:55                 ` Andrew STUBBS
2005-10-21 16:39                   ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-10-21 22:03                     ` Eli Zaretskii
2005-10-21 22:13                   ` Eli Zaretskii
2005-10-24 10:28                     ` Andrew STUBBS
2005-10-24 11:06                       ` Eli Zaretskii
2005-10-24 12:56                         ` Andrew STUBBS
2005-10-25 10:45                           ` Eli Zaretskii
2005-11-01 16:24                             ` Andrew STUBBS
2005-11-01 16:28                               ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-11-01 17:43                                 ` Andrew STUBBS

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=43561685.3010300@st.com \
    --to=andrew.stubbs@st.com \
    --cc=eliz@gnu.org \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox