From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10229 invoked by alias); 15 Jul 2011 20:49:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 10217 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Jul 2011 20:49:07 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.9 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; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 20:48:54 +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 p6FKmruE018650 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 16:48:53 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p6FKmrHC017922; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 16:48:53 -0400 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 p6FKmqUA025674; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 16:48:52 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [4/4] RFC: dynamic arrays and DW_FORM_exprloc References: <20110715181512.GA20327@host1.jankratochvil.net> Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 20:58:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20110715181512.GA20327@host1.jankratochvil.net> (Jan Kratochvil's message of "Fri, 15 Jul 2011 20:15:12 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (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: 2011-07/txt/msg00406.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil writes: Jan> archer-jankratochvil-vla handles DW_FORM_exprloc by using Jan> attr_form_is_block here. But that may be outside of the scope of Jan> this patch, this change is OK. I will change it to use attr_form_is_block; that seems totally reasonable to me. Tom