From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1833 invoked by alias); 17 Apr 2012 14:41:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 1713 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Apr 2012 14:41:34 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,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 14:41:11 +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 q3HEfAx9004810 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 10:41:10 -0400 Received: from barimba (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 q3HEf9m7011511 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 17 Apr 2012 10:41:09 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: Pedro Alves , 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> <20120417141232.GA6109@host2.jankratochvil.net> Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:48:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20120417141232.GA6109@host2.jankratochvil.net> (Jan Kratochvil's message of "Tue, 17 Apr 2012 16:12:32 +0200") Message-ID: <874nsiwhdm.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.95 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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/msg00482.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil writes: Jan> I do not like this apprach as it misleads the reader that Jan> FIELD_BITPOS is newly set here. This is why I did not want to Jan> implement such change and just fixed the existing cases. Jan> FIELD_BITPOS is being only added to, which the original code said. Jan> Now the code is not so clear. We could add a comment to clarify it. This technique is already used elsewhere, so the reader presumably will be familiar with the idiom. Jan> That it gets caught by review is true but particularly with GDB Jan> many patches are even never submitted. Let's pretend that patches that aren't submitted just don't exist. That's what I do :) The reason I like the rvalue accessor approach is that it helps prevent future bugs of this sort. No approach is perfect, especially because C has relatively weak access protection mechanisms, but I still see this as an improvement overall. I agree that this is yet another thing that C++ does better. But that is being discussed under a different thread and, until some decision is reached, I think we should continue to deal with the patches we see as they are, and not link them to C++. After all, even if C++ is approved the migration will not be instantaneous. Tom