From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12836 invoked by alias); 20 Oct 2011 16:35:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 11821 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Oct 2011 16:35:08 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.2 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; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 16:34:42 +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 p9KGYdEv017721 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 20 Oct 2011 12:34:39 -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 p9KGYdXj026208; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 12:34:39 -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 p9KGYbLi009534; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 12:34:38 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Paul Koning Cc: Li Yu , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] gdb/python: add missing handling for anonymous members of struct and union References: <4E8595F6.7080004@gmail.com> <2460DAAE-C437-469A-BA1A-47343C5DBB45@comcast.net> Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 18:49:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <2460DAAE-C437-469A-BA1A-47343C5DBB45@comcast.net> (Paul Koning's message of "Wed, 19 Oct 2011 16:58:12 -0400") 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: 2011-10/txt/msg00568.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Paul" == Paul Koning writes: Paul> So I think that amounts to rejecting Yu's patch. Yeah, I'm afraid so. Paul> Also, given my point 3, does that mean we should change val["foo"] so Paul> it doesn't recurse down into anonymous fields as it does today? That Paul> would be a change in behavior for an existing feature. I am not sure about this one :( >> I would be in favor of helper functions in gdb.types, though. Paul> What did you have in mind? The sort of deep iterator you posted earlier. Tom