From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2094 invoked by alias); 17 Apr 2012 14:03:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 2082 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Apr 2012 14:03:55 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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, 17 Apr 2012 14:03:42 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q3HE3fjj031849 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 10:03:42 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q3HE3eBm025646; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 10:03:41 -0400 Message-ID: <4F8D783C.3000501@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:05:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120329 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Kratochvil CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Siddhesh Poyarekar Subject: Re: [commit] Do not rely on FIELD_LOC_KIND_BITPOS being zero References: <20120417124410.GA15356@host2.jankratochvil.net> <4F8D695E.7070002@redhat.com> <20120417131559.GA25248@host2.jankratochvil.net> <4F8D76B7.90709@redhat.com> <20120417140122.GB28916@host2.jankratochvil.net> In-Reply-To: <20120417140122.GB28916@host2.jankratochvil.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2012-04/txt/msg00470.txt.bz2 On 04/17/2012 03:01 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 15:57:11 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote: >> > Nor with C getters and setters with opaque types. > It is just too much coding, like here _LVAL, it is just borind this C++ > reimplementation in C, the standard is C++, why GDB has to call all the > standard C++ constructs differently. You're deeply confused if you think C++ invented getters/setters. -- Pedro Alves