From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <archer-return-1897-listarch-archer=sourceware.org@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 7582 invoked by alias); 3 Feb 2010 23:30:21 -0000
Mailing-List: contact archer-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Sender: <archer@sourceware.org>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:archer@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:archer-help@sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:archer-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Id: <archer.sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 7562 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Feb 2010 23:30:19 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0
	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 23:30:00 -0000
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@codesourcery.com>
To: Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>
Cc: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>, Chris Moller <cmoller@redhat.com>,
	Eric Bachalo <ebachalo@redhat.com>,
	Project Archer <archer@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: PR 11067
Message-ID: <20100203232819.GK9493@caradoc.them.org>
References: <4B68A35E.2050301@redhat.com>
 <m3bpg7yznc.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
 <4B68DC25.1090808@redhat.com>
 <m3fx5irwx6.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
 <4B69F028.9070006@redhat.com>
 <20100203224239.04338AA@magilla.sf.frob.com>
 <m3wryundfv.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
 <20100203231408.GA6397@caradoc.them.org>
 <20100203232506.B073AAA@magilla.sf.frob.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20100203232506.B073AAA@magilla.sf.frob.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
X-SW-Source: 2010-q1/txt/msg00057.txt.bz2

On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 03:25:06PM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
> Yeah, I was going for parity and the /c format would not have been my first
> choice if we didn't already have it.  I think:
> 
> $2 = (enum frobozz) 1 = ENUM1
> 
> would be fine too, or maybe reverse the clauses.  "(type) digit" is
> probably what's most likely always to be pasteable anywhere, in case
> it's into a context where you don't have the same scope for the enum
> constant (in C++).

Something to consider is what contexts you want this output in.  I
think this would get old really fast:

$2 = { code = CODE_ADD = (enum code) 1, ops = OPS_TWO = (enum ops) 2 }

vs

$2 = { code = CODE_ADD, ops = OPS_TWO }
(gdb) p CODE_ADD
$3 = CODE_ADD = (enum code) 1

Hmm, can't say I like that format any better either, but there's got
to be a good one.  I usually p/d CODE_ADD to find out the value...

My takeaway point here is to consider the overall impact.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery