From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03A8A385781B for ; Sat, 14 Nov 2020 16:14:56 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 03A8A385781B Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=simark.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=simark@simark.ca Received: from [10.0.0.11] (173-246-6-90.qc.cable.ebox.net [173.246.6.90]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9E3B91E552; Sat, 14 Nov 2020 11:14:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] Add support for printing value of DWARF-based fixed-point type objects To: Joel Brobecker Cc: GDB patches References: <1604817017-25807-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <1604817017-25807-6-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <2d12525a-3a85-3f69-bfea-22166f7fd358@simark.ca> <20201114113005.GB404828@adacore.com> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: <108c1483-683b-f98d-c424-27871993667c@simark.ca> Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2020 11:14:56 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20201114113005.GB404828@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Language: fr Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2020 16:14:58 -0000 On 2020-11-14 6:30 a.m., Joel Brobecker wrote: > Can you tell me if the attached patch corresponds to what you had > in mind? As the revlog suggests, it's missing a bit of doc around it, > but I wanted to make sure I did this correctly before adding the forms. Yes, that looks fine, thanks. I would split the following assert in two: gdb_assert (this->code () == TYPE_CODE_FIXED_POINT && this->main_type->type_specific.fixed_point_info != nullptr); because if it fails, it makes it easier at first glance to know which condition was false. Otherwise, that is fine with me. I think the whole type-specific stuff management will have to be redesigned at some point anyway, so that we can use non-POD types in there. Simon