Re: [python][patch] Pretty printers for anonymous types.

[Paul Pluzhnikov <ppluzhnikov at google dot com>]

On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 6:55 PM, Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> wrote:

> I think there are three separate questions:
>
> 1. How do we want the pretty-printer type lookup to work, in the
> abstract?  I think your patch addresses this, and your approach seems
> reasonable enough -- though maybe we should really just do what
> Jeffrey suggested.  (I'll follow up there.)
>
> 2. How to handle what GCC emits.  Even if we get GCC fixed, 4.3 will
> remain broken.  So it seems to me that we might as well work around
> it.
>
> 3. How to deal with internal gdb oddities exposed by this approach.
> Here I think an archer bug would be fine.

So, given that my patch at the start of this thread fixes the
problem only for "plain C" anonymous types, should I commit it?

[It solves a real problem for Jeffrey, and anonymous types are much
less frequent in C++, so arguably this solves 66% of the problem :]

The C++ anonymous struct can't be solved without solving #3 (it
seems that the "wrong" (== fully resolved) type is attached to the
value at the dwarf reader level).

Thanks,
-- 
Paul Pluzhnikov