From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 70961 invoked by alias); 21 Nov 2017 19:14:46 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 70935 invoked by uid 89); 21 Nov 2017 19:14:44 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KB_WAM_FROM_NAME_SINGLEWORD,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=personal, opportunity, learn X-HELO: eggs.gnu.org Received: from eggs.gnu.org (HELO eggs.gnu.org) (208.118.235.92) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 19:14:42 +0000 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eHE0D-0003kS-SF for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 14:14:41 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:44580) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eHE0D-0003kN-PK; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 14:14:37 -0500 Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=4087 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1eHE0C-0005R1-Qo; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 14:14:37 -0500 Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 19:14:00 -0000 Message-Id: <83a7zfculq.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Sergio Durigan Junior CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <87shd7mush.fsf@redhat.com> (message from Sergio Durigan Junior on Tue, 21 Nov 2017 12:00:14 -0500) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Implement pahole-like 'ptype /o' option Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20171121160709.23248-1-sergiodj@redhat.com> <83bmjvd19e.fsf@gnu.org> <87shd7mush.fsf@redhat.com> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-11/txt/msg00456.txt.bz2 > From: Sergio Durigan Junior > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 12:00:14 -0500 > > >> + /o print offsets and sizes of fields in a struct (like pahole)\n")); > > > > I wonder whether we should mention 'pahole' at all. > > I thought that it was good to mention 'pahole' here because that was the > main motivation for writing this patch. My feeling is that it's > benefitial to mention 'pahole' because even if the user doesn't know > what it is, this will be a good opportunity for them to learn :-). > > But that's my personal opinion; I won't fight if you think the reference > should be removed. I don't have strong a opinion. Let's see what others think. If no one chimes in, feel free to leave it unchanged.