From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 114443 invoked by alias); 19 Jan 2016 11:02:33 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 114427 invoked by uid 89); 19 Jan 2016 11:02:32 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=H*Ad:D*ca X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 11:02:31 +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 (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98D9918B24B; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 11:02:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (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 u0JB2T2O024334; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 06:02:29 -0500 Message-ID: <569E17C5.6080909@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 11:02:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Simon Marchi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Fix sorting of enum values in FlagEnumerationPrinter References: <1453177390-13881-1-git-send-email-simon.marchi@polymtl.ca> In-Reply-To: <1453177390-13881-1-git-send-email-simon.marchi@polymtl.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-01/txt/msg00417.txt.bz2 Thanks for catching this. I find it surprising that the printer doesn't respect the order of the values as they're defined though. Shouldn't we remove the sort line entirely, thus keeping the existing behavior? I couldn't find mention of the sorting in the documentation either. Or, maybe the printer doesn't work correctly if the "overlapping" value (which I think it the whole point of this printer) is defined before the particular values, like, e.g.: enum flag_enum { ALL = 1 | 2 | 4, FLAG_2 = 2, FLAG_3 = 4, FLAG_1 = 1, }; ? On 01/19/2016 04:23 AM, Simon Marchi wrote: > + > enum flag_enum > { > - FLAG_1 = 1, > + /* Define the enumration values in an unsorted manner to verify that we > + effectively sort them by value. */ typo: "enumration". Thanks, Pedro Alves