From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26510 invoked by alias); 10 Feb 2012 19:22:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 26501 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Feb 2012 19:22:33 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.0 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; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:22:08 +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 q1AJLk72031217 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:21:46 -0500 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q1AJLkPS000739; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:21:46 -0500 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q1AJLhr6017965; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:21:44 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [no-commit-intention] Naive unnamed fields for main_type [Re: [patch] Fix gdb-gdb.py for flds_bnds copy-pastes] References: <20120209092727.GA2664@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120209093119.GA2722@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120209151621.GB3474@adacore.com> <20120209153642.GA12261@host2.jankratochvil.net> <874nuyef9c.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20120210190102.GA9186@host2.jankratochvil.net> Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:22:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20120210190102.GA9186@host2.jankratochvil.net> (Jan Kratochvil's message of "Fri, 10 Feb 2012 20:01:02 +0100") Message-ID: <87y5saa3zs.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.93 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: 2012-02/txt/msg00218.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Jan" =3D=3D Jan Kratochvil writes: Jan> `long long' is apparently not supported by ISO C90 compilers, so it Jan> is a bug if GDB claims C90 compatibility. Or what do you mean? I mean that this is clearly a C90 violation. Another question is whether some compilers accept parts of C99 but not all of it. As to the original problem, anonymous unions are a GCC extension, now in C11 -- but not in C99: barimba. echo 'struct { int a; struct { int b; }; } s;'|gcc --syntax-only -= x c - -Wall -std=3Dc99 -pedantic :1:34: warning: ISO C99 doesn=E2=80=99t support unnamed structs/unio= ns [-pedantic] So moving to C99 wouldn't help that. Tom