From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3347 invoked by alias); 2 Nov 2012 17:09:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 3335 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Nov 2012 17:09:47 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_SPAMHAUS_DROP,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS 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; Fri, 02 Nov 2012 17:09:37 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qA2H9ZvE016620 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 2 Nov 2012 13:09:35 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qA2H9XRS012924 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 2 Nov 2012 13:09:34 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Pedro Alves Cc: Yao Qi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] Remove OP_LABELED. References: <1351756007-18242-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <1351756007-18242-2-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <5093F814.6080308@redhat.com> <87vcdoosr2.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <5093F9EC.6020502@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 17:09:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <5093F9EC.6020502@redhat.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Fri, 02 Nov 2012 16:50:52 +0000") Message-ID: <87mwz0orsi.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (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: 2012-11/txt/msg00053.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves 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