From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17982 invoked by alias); 17 Apr 2012 14:21:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 17968 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Apr 2012 14:21:22 -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 14:21:00 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q3HEKx6l015141 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 10:20:59 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q3HEKwCJ032259 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 17 Apr 2012 10:20:58 -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> Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:27:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20120417131559.GA25248@host2.jankratochvil.net> (Jan Kratochvil's message of "Tue, 17 Apr 2012 15:15:59 +0200") Message-ID: <87d376wib9.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/msg00475.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil writes: Pedro> We could make the compiler catch these by making the macro return Pedro> an rvalue. Yes, please do it. If there is a setter we should make the getter an rvalue when possible. Jan> With C++ getters and constructors-with-parameters such problem would have Jan> never exist. Also true :) Tom