From: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
To: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
Cc: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] typedef-checking for CU relative vs. absolute offsets [Re: RFC: problem with DW_OP_GNU_deref_type and dwarf's get_base_type callback]
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 21:53:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87eht2n4jf.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120307171249.GB22619@host2.jankratochvil.net> (Jan Kratochvil's message of "Wed, 7 Mar 2012 18:12:49 +0100")
>>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> writes:
Jan> This is not maintainable IMO in its current form.
Jan> typedef struct { unsigned int co; } cu_offset;
Jan> typedef struct { unsigned int so; } sect_offset;
Jan> OK with the patch?
I read through the thread.
I think this patch is a good idea. I find that it does not clutter up
the code very much (which was my main concern), and it adds type-safety
to an area where we've clearly already had review and/or reasoning
failures.
Tom
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-03-08 21:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-03-05 22:34 RFC: problem with DW_OP_GNU_deref_type and dwarf's get_base_type callback Joel Brobecker
2012-03-06 20:25 ` Tom Tromey
2012-03-06 23:46 ` Joel Brobecker
2012-03-07 17:10 ` [patch] Fix CU relative vs. absolute offsets [Re: RFC: problem with DW_OP_GNU_deref_type and dwarf's get_base_type callback] Jan Kratochvil
2012-03-07 17:13 ` [patch 2/2] typedef-checking for " Jan Kratochvil
2012-03-07 18:58 ` Doug Evans
2012-03-07 19:10 ` Jan Kratochvil
2012-03-07 19:29 ` Jan Kratochvil
2012-03-08 21:54 ` Tom Tromey
2012-03-08 21:56 ` Doug Evans
2012-03-07 19:07 ` Joel Brobecker
2012-03-07 19:16 ` Jan Kratochvil
2012-03-08 21:53 ` Tom Tromey [this message]
2012-03-09 19:40 ` cu_offset vs. sect_offset field names bikeshedding [Re: [patch 2/2] typedef-checking for CU relative vs. absolute offsets] Jan Kratochvil
2012-03-09 19:52 ` Joel Brobecker
2012-03-19 20:02 ` [commit] [patch 2/2] typedef-checking for CU relative vs. absolute offsets Jan Kratochvil
2012-03-09 19:56 ` cu_offset vs. sect_offset field names bikeshedding [Re: [patch 2/2] typedef-checking for CU relative vs. absolute offsets] Tom Tromey
2012-03-07 18:57 ` [patch] Fix CU relative vs. absolute offsets [Re: RFC: problem with DW_OP_GNU_deref_type and dwarf's get_base_type callback] Joel Brobecker
2012-03-07 19:47 ` Joel Brobecker
2012-03-08 19:40 ` [commit] " Jan Kratochvil
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87eht2n4jf.fsf@fleche.redhat.com \
--to=tromey@redhat.com \
--cc=brobecker@adacore.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=jan.kratochvil@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox