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, Mar 7, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Jan Kratochvil
<jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 18:09:40 +0100, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
>> There are more issues of this kind.
>
> This is not maintainable IMO in its current form.
>
> typedef struct { unsigned int co; } cu_offset;
> typedef struct { unsigned int so; } sect_offset;
>
> OK with the patch?

The problem stems from "offset" being ambiguous.
I'd rather just pick a better (clearer) name and be consistent.


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