This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org 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: [patch 2/2] typedef-checking for CU relative vs. absolute offsets [Re: RFC: problem with DW_OP_GNU_deref_type and dwarf's get_base_type callback]


On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 20:07:03 +0100, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> Or maybe you really want different field names
> to make the writer aware of which offset he really has.

Exactly.


> In that case,
> perhaps field names that are a little more explicit? For instance:
> "rel_off" and "abs_off" (for "relative" vs "absolute")?

Not so fine with rel vs. abs (I find the sect vs. CU distinction more clear,
both are relative) and not so fine with _off (too long).  But I do not mind
the naming.


Regards,
Jan


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