From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 82172 invoked by alias); 18 Feb 2020 22:25:05 -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 81816 invoked by uid 89); 18 Feb 2020 22:24:46 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy= X-HELO: simark.ca Received: from simark.ca (HELO simark.ca) (158.69.221.121) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 22:24:45 +0000 Received: from [172.16.0.95] (192-222-181-218.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.181.218]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 05E511E47D; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 17:24:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] gdb: allow duplicate enumerators in flag enums To: Tom Tromey Cc: Simon Marchi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20200213203035.30157-1-simon.marchi@efficios.com> <20200213203035.30157-3-simon.marchi@efficios.com> <87a75f7hs7.fsf@tromey.com> <31be9c0a-c389-123b-e2cd-338add47aca2@simark.ca> <87blpv5zjy.fsf@tromey.com> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 22:25:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87blpv5zjy.fsf@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2020-02/txt/msg00751.txt.bz2 On 2020-02-18 4:57 p.m., Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Simon" == Simon Marchi writes: > > Simon> Is this list of fields guaranteed to be > Simon> in the same order as what's in the code though? > > Yeah, should be, of course subject to what the compiler decides. > > Simon> Not sure what you mean here. With the current patch, this enum would not > Simon> bne marked as a flag enum, as `one` has multiple bits set. > > I read the patches in the wrong order. FAOD this one also looks good to me. Thanks, I'll push the series then. Simon