From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8679 invoked by alias); 23 Jan 2006 20:45:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 8401 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Jan 2006 20:45:09 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from zproxy.gmail.com (HELO zproxy.gmail.com) (64.233.162.194) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:45:08 +0000 Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id x3so986069nzd for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 12:45:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.36.2.12 with SMTP id 12mr4227636nzb; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 12:45:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.37.2.42 with HTTP; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 12:45:06 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <8f2776cb0601231245y6bc1e8a4yc80070284575e654@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:45:00 -0000 From: Jim Blandy To: fnf@specifix.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix ptype problem printing typedefs defined differently in different compilation units Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <200601231435.47790.fnf@specifix.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <200601031517.50309.fnf@specifix.com> <200601231143.22560.fnf@specifix.com> <8f2776cb0601231117r6bdb8f95g6ee4c60aa6ebd22@mail.gmail.com> <200601231435.47790.fnf@specifix.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-01/txt/msg00338.txt.bz2 On 1/23/06, Fred Fish wrote: > This is why I think the correct and complete solution is to allow the > user to directly specify the context. Sure. That would entail extending the 'type_exp' non-terminal to have a FILENAME COLONCOLON TYPE production. Sounds like the right thing. What's confusing me, though, is that you seemed to present that possibility as an alternative to the patch previously posted. It looks to me like both changes make sense, and they seem independent of each other. Since we have the test case in there failing right now, I'd like to get the previous patch in, and perhaps continue the discussion about filename qualification in a separate thread.