From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7687 invoked by alias); 7 Aug 2008 17:31:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 7676 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Aug 2008 17:31:53 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 07 Aug 2008 17:31:18 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m77HVDH9028559; Thu, 7 Aug 2008 13:31:13 -0400 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [10.11.255.20]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m77HVDBV017857; Thu, 7 Aug 2008 13:31:13 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (vpn-10-34.bos.redhat.com [10.16.10.34]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m77HVCvP019650; Thu, 7 Aug 2008 13:31:13 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 2F703378159; Thu, 7 Aug 2008 11:31:14 -0600 (MDT) To: "Paul Pluzhnikov" Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] [patch] 'p->x' vs. 'p.x' and 'print object on' References: <20080717214839.6AE253A67B6@localhost> <8ac60eac0807301050id1051q8072925c0d11b96d@mail.gmail.com> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: Tom Tromey X-Attribution: Tom Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 17:31:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <8ac60eac0807301050id1051q8072925c0d11b96d@mail.gmail.com> (Paul Pluzhnikov's message of "Wed\, 30 Jul 2008 10\:50\:24 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2008-08/txt/msg00152.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Paul" == Paul Pluzhnikov writes: Paul> Thanks for bringing that up. I've modified the test case to have Paul> a field 'y' in both the base and derived classes (attached at the Paul> end), and the current situation is (IMHO) just as confusing before Paul> the patch as it is after :( Thanks for doing this. Paul> C) Do what the language does: lookup field 'x' in the static type, Paul> and only try dynamic type if the first lookup failed: Paul> I think "C" is the least confusing alternative. Paul> It may actually be good to do "C" independent of the 'print object' Paul> setting. I agree. This does sound better. Paul> Yes, I just wanted to see what people think about this before Paul> creating the test case. FWIW I'm definitely in favor. Tom