From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18087 invoked by alias); 14 Nov 2011 20:28:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 18078 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Nov 2011 20:28:50 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,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; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 20:28:33 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pAEKSWZZ009105 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:28:32 -0500 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pAEKSWU2009536; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:28:32 -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 pAEKSUFT030979; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:28:31 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Keith Seitz Cc: "gdb-patches\@sourceware.org ml" Subject: Re: [RFA] mi/10586 References: <4EBD93D9.2020006@redhat.com> <4EC157F6.1030503@redhat.com> <4EC16BD8.90309@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 20:28:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <4EC16BD8.90309@redhat.com> (Keith Seitz's message of "Mon, 14 Nov 2011 11:28:24 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.90 (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: 2011-11/txt/msg00364.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Keith" == Keith Seitz writes: Keith> According to the documentation, -var-info-expression is supposed to Keith> return a name of the variable/child which is to be presented to the Keith> user. I don't think we want to present "0_anonymous". GCC uses Keith> "", and that seems like a reasonable convention to Keith> follow. Actually, thinking about it more, it seems to me that it would be ok for these cases to just be errors. There's no really good way to refer to the anonymous field as its own entity, and I don't think we should hack up the parser and whatever else to support this. Keith> Clearly the two last elements dealing with 0_anonymous are Keith> incorrect. I believe these should be: Keith> -var-info-path-expression a.public.0_anonymous = "" This one, I think should be an error. Keith> -var-info-path-expression a.public.0_anonymous.b = "((a).b)" But I agree about this one. What do you think? Tom