From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6742 invoked by alias); 8 Mar 2012 21:53:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 6729 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Mar 2012 21:53:37 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,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; Thu, 08 Mar 2012 21:53:22 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q28LrAh2002411 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 8 Mar 2012 16:53:10 -0500 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q28Lr8fk003134 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 8 Mar 2012 16:53:09 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: Joel Brobecker , 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] References: <20120305223429.GM2867@adacore.com> <20120307170940.GA22619@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120307171249.GB22619@host2.jankratochvil.net> Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 21:53:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20120307171249.GB22619@host2.jankratochvil.net> (Jan Kratochvil's message of "Wed, 7 Mar 2012 18:12:49 +0100") Message-ID: <87eht2n4jf.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.94 (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: 2012-03/txt/msg00291.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil 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