Re: [rfa] ENUM_BITFIELD, here it comes again

[Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>]

Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec@shout.net> writes:
> Here we go again ... a new version of my ENUM_BITFIELD patch.
> +/* Classification types for this symbol.  These should be taken as "advisory
> +   only", since if gdb can't easily figure out a classification it simply
> +   selects mst_unknown.  It may also have to guess when it can't figure out
> +   which is a better match between two types (mst_data versus mst_bss) for
> +   example.  Since the minimal symbol info is sometimes derived from the
> +   BFD library's view of a file, we need to live with what information bfd
> +   supplies. */

Some of this comment needs to stay in the struct, and some needs to
stick with the enum.