This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [patch] static_kind -> bit0, bit1 [Re: [gdb] Fortran dynamic arrays]
- From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- To: Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 09:30:47 -0600
- Subject: Re: [patch] static_kind -> bit0, bit1 [Re: [gdb] Fortran dynamic arrays]
- References: <20080818111120.GE16894@adacore.com> <200808181553.m7IFrG3w005270@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> <48A59B3C.9050801@net-b.de> <20080818111120.GE16894@adacore.com> <20080907115637.GA12939@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net>
- Reply-to: tromey at redhat dot com
>>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> writes:
Jan> One of such spare space there is `enum array_bound_type' Except
Jan> for BOUND_CANNOT_BE_DETERMINED it is never set anywhere.
Jan> BOUND_BY_* are read only in f-valprint.c. In fact it could be
Jan> probably used for the new bits TYPE_BOUND_IS_DWARF_BLOCK and
Jan> possibly TYPE_HIGH_BOUND_IS_COUNT but I would rather like to
Jan> later remove `enum array_bound_type' and its fields at all.
This sounds like a good cleanup to me.
Jan> The patch modifies a lot of sources trying to follow the new
Jan> style of main_type bitfields instead of the former FLAGS
Jan> variable. I do not think current main_type layout is right but
Jan> the patch tries to follow the current main_type style.
Do you mean the main_type layout after this patch, or before this patch?
If before -- could you be more specific?
Tom