From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22827 invoked by alias); 20 Aug 2003 07:52:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 22813 invoked from network); 20 Aug 2003 07:52:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO zenia.home) (12.223.225.216) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Aug 2003 07:52:51 -0000 Received: by zenia.home (Postfix, from userid 5433) id E8FCD202C8; Wed, 20 Aug 2003 02:54:00 -0500 (EST) To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa] ENUM_BITFIELD, here it comes again References: <200308200249.h7K2ni62029448@duracef.shout.net> From: Jim Blandy Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 07:52:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <200308200249.h7K2ni62029448@duracef.shout.net> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-08/txt/msg00335.txt.bz2 Michael Elizabeth Chastain 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.