From: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
To: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
Cc: Yao Qi <yao@codesourcery.com>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] Remove OP_LABELED.
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 17:09:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87mwz0orsi.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5093F9EC.6020502@redhat.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Fri, 02 Nov 2012 16:50:52 +0000")
>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> writes:
Pedro> Yep, that was the plan. I'll take that as confirmation that designated
Pedro> initializers are not known to be, or should be working through some
Pedro> other means. :-) Thanks.
Yeah, sorry about this -- I actually thought about the C designated
initializer issue when ok'ing the series, but I neglected to mention
this in my review.
It isn't totally clear that we want to support this feature. In C it is
just for initializers, not in arbitrary expressions.
In gdb terms you could only use it to assign to an existing struct
object, because the evaluator would need an "expected type".
So, it seemed marginal to me; and on top of that it is unclear whether
the old code is at all useful to C anyway -- hence my ok.
I don't object to a PR of course, and if somebody implements it I won't
reject it -- I think it is just marginal, but not truly bad :)
Tom
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-11-02 17:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-11-01 7:47 [PATCH 0/6] Remove unused operator OP_LABELED Yao Qi
2012-11-01 7:47 ` [PATCH 3/6] Remove 'variantno' Yao Qi
2012-11-01 15:44 ` Tom Tromey
2012-11-01 7:47 ` [PATCH 5/6] Indentation Yao Qi
2012-11-01 15:45 ` Tom Tromey
2012-11-01 7:47 ` [PATCH 1/6] Remove OP_LABELED Yao Qi
2012-11-01 15:41 ` Tom Tromey
2012-11-02 16:43 ` Pedro Alves
2012-11-02 16:49 ` Tom Tromey
2012-11-02 16:51 ` Pedro Alves
2012-11-02 17:09 ` Tom Tromey [this message]
2012-11-02 17:25 ` Pedro Alves
2012-11-01 7:47 ` [PATCH 2/6] Update comment of evaluate_struct_tuple Yao Qi
2012-11-01 15:42 ` Tom Tromey
2012-11-01 7:47 ` [PATCH 4/6] Remove 'substruct_type' and 'subfieldno' Yao Qi
2012-11-01 15:44 ` Tom Tromey
2012-11-01 7:47 ` [PATCH 6/6] Test nested struct assign Yao Qi
2012-11-01 15:47 ` Tom Tromey
2012-11-01 15:47 ` [PATCH 0/6] Remove unused operator OP_LABELED Tom Tromey
2012-11-02 0:20 ` [committed]: " Yao Qi
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=87mwz0orsi.fsf@fleche.redhat.com \
--to=tromey@redhat.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=palves@redhat.com \
--cc=yao@codesourcery.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