Re: [RFA 3/4] Remove TYPE_TAG_NAME

[Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com>]

>>>>> "Keith" == Keith Seitz <keiths@redhat.com> writes:

>> +      /* If we have "typedef struct foo {. . .} bar;" do we want to
>> +	 print it as "struct foo" or as "bar"?  Pick the latter for
>> +	 C++, because C++ folk tend to expect things like "class5
>> +	 *foo" rather than "struct class5 *foo".  */
>> +      if (language == language_c || language == language_minimal)

Keith> I'm almost afraid to ask, but why was language_minimal necessary here?
Keith> A small comment might be appropriate?
Keith> [I think I can already guess the heinous reason...] Do you know if
Keith> there is a test case that specifically covers this block with
Keith> language_minimal?

I think in this case, I added language_minimal on the theory that it is
"C-like".  I don't think there's a test case.

I can add a comment, and a test case wouldn't be too hard either.

Keith> Good riddance! I never did understand the "except by poorly
Keith> designed C++ code" comment.

Haha, me neither.  I always considered it a critique of some other code
elsewhere in gdb (perhaps long since removed) but who knows.

>> gdb_test "ptype \$structreg" \
>> "type = struct struct1 {\r\n *v4int8 v4;\r\n *v2int16 v2;\r\n}"

Keith> <rhetorical>Was the tag name never printed until now?</rhetorical> Wow!

Maybe I should have investigated this one more deeply?
I dunno.  The change seemed to make sense to me so I just moved on.

Tom