From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17162 invoked by alias); 15 Nov 2011 17:10:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 17151 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Nov 2011 17:10:42 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,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; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 17:10:18 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pAFHAIES023895 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 12:10:18 -0500 Received: from valrhona.uglyboxes.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pAFHAFWI018876 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 15 Nov 2011 12:10:17 -0500 Message-ID: <4EC29CF7.40204@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 17:10:00 -0000 From: Keith Seitz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:7.0) Gecko/20110927 Thunderbird/7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Tromey CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org ml" Subject: Re: [RFA] mi/10586 References: <4EBD93D9.2020006@redhat.com> <4EC157F6.1030503@redhat.com> <4EC16BD8.90309@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2011-11/txt/msg00393.txt.bz2 On 11/14/2011 12:28 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: > Actually, thinking about it more, it seems to me that it would be ok for > these cases to just be errors. There's no really good way to refer to > the anonymous field as its own entity, and I don't think we should hack > up the parser and whatever else to support this. An error... I'm not so sure that I like that, but to be honest, I'm not sure I like/dislike it sufficiently to argue about it. > Keith> Clearly the two last elements dealing with 0_anonymous are > Keith> incorrect. I believe these should be: > Keith> -var-info-path-expression a.public.0_anonymous = "" > > This one, I think should be an error. > Yes, that one could be an error. I was just mirroring what the "fake" children currently do. (-var-info-path-expression a.public = ""). > Keith> -var-info-path-expression a.public.0_anonymous.b = "((a).b)" > > But I agree about this one. Ok, so we're close. This is probably the "trickier" bit to get correct, so I can start on writing some more elaborate tests for this. Keith