This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [RFA] New bitflags type and eflags on i386/x86-64


Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
But Andrew's patch doesn't require a new infrastructure, which is nice. I stand by all my previous objections to your patch. We have a type
that does this
No, it does something else and perhaps it could be tweaked to do what I need.

> fix its complex, nested interface, then!

I believe FLAGS would be in use more often then SET. Why to "rape" SET everytime when I'd need it to behave like FLAGS? It's much clearer to have FLAGS type for flags puropses.

Michal Ludvig
--
* SuSE CR, s.r.o * mludvig@suse.cz
* +420 2 9654 5373 * http://www.suse.cz


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]