From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29377 invoked by alias); 23 May 2011 15:42:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 29336 invoked by uid 22791); 23 May 2011 15:42:40 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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, 23 May 2011 15:42:27 +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 p4NFg5Ni015815 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 23 May 2011 11:42:05 -0400 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 p4NFg4mO007105; Mon, 23 May 2011 11:42:04 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (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 p4NFg4X3004271; Mon, 23 May 2011 11:42:04 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id DDB043791A0; Mon, 23 May 2011 09:42:03 -0600 (MDT) From: Tom Tromey To: Tristan Gingold Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] aix: add support for dwarf2. References: <1306146544-3925-1-git-send-email-gingold@adacore.com> <1306146544-3925-4-git-send-email-gingold@adacore.com> Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 15:42:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Tom Tromey's message of "Mon, 23 May 2011 09:34:36 -0600") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (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: 2011-05/txt/msg00532.txt.bz2 Tom> I don't like this approach, because it requires some non-obvious code Tom> synchronization between this struct and dwarf2read. No, I'm pretty wrong here. Reordering the struct would indeed cause problems, because all the fields have the same type -- but this is also not a very likely transformation. Adding or removing a field should be ok, which is what matters. I don't think this is such a big deal after all. Tom