From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28098 invoked by alias); 5 Apr 2008 16:11:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 28089 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Apr 2008 16:11:45 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from heller.inter.net.il (HELO heller.inter.net.il) (213.8.233.23) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 05 Apr 2008 16:11:25 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-84-229-231-225.inter.net.il [84.229.231.225]) by heller.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3a-GA) with ESMTP id FKV59555 (AUTH halo1); Sat, 5 Apr 2008 19:11:13 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2008 16:49:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Strangeness in set command Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii 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/msg00049.txt.bz2 Assuming that `s' is a variable of type `struct stat', this command fails: (gdb) set s.st_mode=0x1ff Ambiguous set command "s.st_mode=0x1ff" But this succeeds: (gdb) set (&s)->st_mode=0x1ff How come we are smart enough to support the latter, but not the former?