From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14419 invoked by alias); 1 Dec 2003 00:01:05 -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 14399 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2003 00:01:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 1 Dec 2003 00:01:04 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.24 #1 (Debian)) id 1AQbUt-0002KF-7L; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:01:03 -0500 Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:01:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gdb@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [rfc] debugging anonymous unions Message-ID: <20031201000102.GA8912@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gdb@gcc.gnu.org References: <20031128215759.GA31439@twiddle.net> <20031130204259.GA25745@twiddle.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031130204259.GA25745@twiddle.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-12/txt/msg00000.txt.bz2 On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 12:42:59PM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote: > 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. For a single location expression, sure, but if there's a location list couldn't you reference the same one? -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer