This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] mi/10586
On 11/14/2011 12:28 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
Actually, thinking about it more, it seems to me that it would be ok for
these cases to just be errors. There's no really good way to refer to
the anonymous field as its own entity, and I don't think we should hack
up the parser and whatever else to support this.
An error... I'm not so sure that I like that, but to be honest, I'm not
sure I like/dislike it sufficiently to argue about it.
Keith> Clearly the two last elements dealing with 0_anonymous are
Keith> incorrect. I believe these should be:
Keith> -var-info-path-expression a.public.0_anonymous = ""
This one, I think should be an error.
Yes, that one could be an error. I was just mirroring what the "fake"
children currently do. (-var-info-path-expression a.public = "").
Keith> -var-info-path-expression a.public.0_anonymous.b = "((a).b)"
But I agree about this one.
Ok, so we're close. This is probably the "trickier" bit to get correct,
so I can start on writing some more elaborate tests for this.