This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA/doco] Fix gdb.Field attributes documentation for enum types.
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2013 11:04:42 +0200
- Subject: Re: [RFA/doco] Fix gdb.Field attributes documentation for enum types.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1387783386-6072-1-git-send-email-brobecker at adacore dot com> <834n5z8rxl dot fsf at gnu dot org> <20131228033003 dot GD4532 at adacore dot com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2013 07:30:03 +0400
> From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
>
> --- a/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo
> +++ b/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo
> @@ -24338,8 +24338,8 @@ Each field is a @code{gdb.Field} object, with some pre-defined attributes:
> @table @code
> @item bitpos
> This attribute is not available for @code{enum} or @code{static}
> -(as in C@t{++} or Java) fields. The value is the bit position of
> -the field.
> +(as in C@t{++} or Java) fields. The value is the position, counting
> +in bits, from the start of the containing type.
Thanks, this is clear.
I'm curious: why are the bit units useful? Field offsets are
generally counted in bytes, not bits.