This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 0/4] bitpos expansion summary reloaded
- From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- To: Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at redhat dot com>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 12:46:07 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] bitpos expansion summary reloaded
- References: <20120929173938.GA2987@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120929181141.GA4009@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120930065211.GA21118@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20121003184155.03dceed4@spoyarek> <20121003195627.GA17283@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20121004071314.GA4292@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20121021130546.02ea680c@spoyarek> <20121025155412.GA16619@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20121025222123.68c7b118@spoyarek> <20121106200117.GA4110@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20121107134742.GA26600@host2.jankratochvil.net>
>>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> writes:
Jan> This is a repeating issue like the checked-in cu_offset vs. sect_offset,
Jan> therefore to use something like:
Jan> typedef struct
Jan> {
Jan> int64_t x;
Jan> } ssize64_type;
I'm concerned about how invasive this might turn out to be.
Maybe you could say something reassuring.
Jan> BTW it would be all sure much easier with C++ and its operator
Jan> overloading.
Yeah, but I think it is clear now that this will never happen.
We just have to make the best of the tools we do have.
Tom