From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3746 invoked by alias); 16 Apr 2008 18:51:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 3735 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Apr 2008 18:51:25 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-out3.apple.com (HELO mail-out3.apple.com) (17.254.13.22) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 18:51:05 +0000 Received: from relay12.apple.com (relay12.apple.com [17.128.113.53]) by mail-out3.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0C0628685CD; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:51:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay12.apple.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by relay12.apple.com (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id D1C66464004; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:51:03 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 11807135-a89b9bb000000d04-df-48064a9752dc Received: from gdbrulez.apple.com (gdbrulez.apple.com [17.201.22.244]) by relay12.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with ESMTP id B6E79420004; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:51:03 -0700 (PDT) Cc: Aleksandar Ristovski , Vladimir Prus , gdb@sourceware.org Message-Id: <4E580E6F-1A74-489C-8825-C28F37BA9B55@apple.com> From: Jim Ingham To: Daniel Jacobowitz In-Reply-To: <20080416183646.GA21807@caradoc.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.919.2) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v919.2) Subject: Re: MI varobj artificial fields Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 19:34:00 -0000 References: <4806400B.7050905@qnx.com> <31CE38D4-0B58-4ADA-8321-7AF5FA4347C6@apple.com> <20080416183646.GA21807@caradoc.them.org> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-04/txt/msg00156.txt.bz2 I assumed that in cases where the protections were interleaved it was just cruft of history, and if you were going to see protections at all, it would make more sense to put them in just three groups. If you have turn-outs, then of course it makes more sense to have three, since otherwise you do a little "did I turn out the right private" dance which is pretty annoying. There probably isn't one correct answer to this question. Jim On Apr 16, 2008, at 11:36 AM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 11:21:53AM -0700, Jim Ingham wrote: >> Yeah, I think this was just added so you get the organization for >> free. >> Note that if you go switch to an attribute, the UI is going to have >> to >> reorder the variables to get all the private ones together, etc. > > Is that really what you'd want? GDB's ptype will group things by > protection in the order they're present anyway, repeating protections > if that's what the source did. I think this is much more logical. > > class foo > { > public: > int a; > > private: > int b; > > public: > int c; > }; > > -- > Daniel Jacobowitz > CodeSourcery