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]


>>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> writes:

Jan> This is not maintainable IMO in its current form.
Jan> typedef struct { unsigned int co; } cu_offset;
Jan> typedef struct { unsigned int so; } sect_offset;

Jan> OK with the patch?

I read through the thread.

I think this patch is a good idea.  I find that it does not clutter up
the code very much (which was my main concern), and it adds type-safety
to an area where we've clearly already had review and/or reasoning
failures.

Tom


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