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
next prev parent 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