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] gdb: Allow struct fields named double

From: Tom Tromey <tom at tromey dot com>
To: Simon Marchi <simark at simark dot ca>
Cc: Andrew Burgess <andrew dot burgess at embecosm dot com>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, jimw at sifive dot com, palmer at sifive dot com, jhb at FreeBSD dot org
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 09:42:15 -0700
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb: Allow struct fields named double
References: <20181215232414.10883-1-andrew.burgess@embecosm.com> <98105817-ba16-27f9-5bcb-7a6e7555f87b@simark.ca>

>>>>> "Simon" == Simon Marchi <simark@simark.ca> writes:

Simon> This looks reasonable to me, from the user point of view there is not reason
Simon> why x.double would be different from x.float.  With the same logic, we should
Simon> also allow x.int, x.short, etc.  But I'm fine with doing it on an as-needed basis.

See also https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13368

Simon> This LGTM, with one thing below you might want to change.  I'm far from an expert
Simon> in parsers though, so please give others ~1 week to comment, and push then if you
Simon> don't receive additional feedback.

I think the main possible issue is if this introduces a new parser conflict.
Taking a glance at the uses of "name" in the grammar, though, it seems
safe enough.

Tom

Follow-Ups:
- [PATCHv2 0/4] gdb: Allow struct fields named double
  - From: Andrew Burgess

References:
- [PATCH] gdb: Allow struct fields named double
  - From: Andrew Burgess
- Re: [PATCH] gdb: Allow struct fields named double
  - From: Simon Marchi

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