This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [rfa] ENUM_BITFIELD, here it comes again
- From: Jim Blandy <jimb at redhat dot com>
- To: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: 20 Aug 2003 02:49:15 -0500
- Subject: Re: [rfa] ENUM_BITFIELD, here it comes again
- References: <200308200249.h7K2ni62029448@duracef.shout.net>
Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec@shout.net> writes:
> Here we go again ... a new version of my ENUM_BITFIELD patch.
> +/* Classification types for this symbol. These should be taken as "advisory
> + only", since if gdb can't easily figure out a classification it simply
> + selects mst_unknown. It may also have to guess when it can't figure out
> + which is a better match between two types (mst_data versus mst_bss) for
> + example. Since the minimal symbol info is sometimes derived from the
> + BFD library's view of a file, we need to live with what information bfd
> + supplies. */
Some of this comment needs to stay in the struct, and some needs to
stick with the enum.