From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32739 invoked by alias); 15 Nov 2011 17:30:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 32714 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Nov 2011 17:30:08 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 17:29:49 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pAFHTnfS006228 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 12:29:49 -0500 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pAFHTn94003303; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 12:29:49 -0500 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pAFHTlIK007984; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 12:29:48 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Keith Seitz Cc: "gdb-patches\@sourceware.org ml" Subject: Re: [RFA] mi/10586 References: <4EBD93D9.2020006@redhat.com> <4EC157F6.1030503@redhat.com> <4EC16BD8.90309@redhat.com> <4EC29CF7.40204@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 17:30:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <4EC29CF7.40204@redhat.com> (Keith Seitz's message of "Tue, 15 Nov 2011 09:10:15 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.90 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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 X-SW-Source: 2011-11/txt/msg00397.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Keith" == Keith Seitz writes: Keith> On 11/14/2011 12:28 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >> Actually, thinking about it more, it seems to me that it would be ok for >> these cases to just be errors. There's no really good way to refer to >> the anonymous field as its own entity, and I don't think we should hack >> up the parser and whatever else to support this. Keith> An error... I'm not so sure that I like that, but to be honest, I'm Keith> not sure I like/dislike it sufficiently to argue about it. I guess it could be done by returning something like: *(struct whatever*) ((char *) original_expr + offset) That is only mildly horrible. Keith> Yes, that one could be an error. I was just mirroring what the "fake" Keith> children currently do. (-var-info-path-expression a.public = ""). Oh, ok. That is fine then. Tom