From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4073 invoked by alias); 30 Nov 2003 20:43:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 4058 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2003 20:43:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO are.twiddle.net) (64.81.246.98) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 30 Nov 2003 20:43:00 -0000 Received: from are.twiddle.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by are.twiddle.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAUKgxeF025773; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:42:59 -0800 Received: (from rth@localhost) by are.twiddle.net (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAUKgxvk025771; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:42:59 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: are.twiddle.net: rth set sender to rth@twiddle.net using -f Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:43:00 -0000 From: Richard Henderson To: Jim Blandy Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gdb@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [rfc] debugging anonymous unions Message-ID: <20031130204259.GA25745@twiddle.net> References: <20031128215759.GA31439@twiddle.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2003-11/txt/msg00299.txt.bz2 On Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 09:47:28PM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote: > Is there anything > interesting you can think of that GDB could do only if it knew there > was an anonymous union involved? The only sligtly interesting thing is not having to replicate a large location list, with small or no perturbations based on offset. Otherwise it makes sense to present gdb with multiple top-level variables. r~