From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17878 invoked by alias); 13 Jan 2014 21:12:45 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 17867 invoked by uid 89); 13 Jan 2014 21:12:44 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 21:12:43 +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 s0DLCfxR017333 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 13 Jan 2014 16:12:41 -0500 Received: from barimba (ovpn-113-85.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.85]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s0DLCd07004888 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 13 Jan 2014 16:12:40 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Siva Chandra Cc: gdb-patches Subject: Re: [Patch] PR python/15464 and python/16113 References: <87lhysltqs.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 21:12:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Siva Chandra's message of "Tue, 7 Jan 2014 06:28:23 -0800") Message-ID: <87ppnvziuw.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2014-01/txt/msg00382.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Siva" == Siva Chandra writes: Tom> I think this approach will fail in the situation where multiple Tom> anonymous sub-objects appear at the same bitpos. I think this happens Tom> with inheritance, typically at bitpos 0 but perhaps elsewhere with Tom> multiple inheritance. My example here was totally wrong -- the Field iterator doesn't recurse into superclasses, so conflicts of the sort I was imagining can't occur. This seems like a reasonable spot to extend the API someday. Luckily you found a way to interpret my comment that actually made sense :) Siva> 2014-12-07 Siva Chandra Reddy Pessimistic date :) Siva> PR python/15464 Siva> PR python/16133 I think it is PR python/16113, not 16133. This patch is ok with those two nits fixed. thanks, Tom