[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [open-cobol-list] gdb support from gcc-cobol
From: |
Keisuke Nishida |
Subject: |
Re: [open-cobol-list] gdb support from gcc-cobol |
Date: |
Wed Jun 4 03:55:07 2003 |
User-agent: |
Wanderlust/2.10.0 (Venus) SEMI/1.14.3 (Ushinoya) FLIM/1.14.3 (UnebigoryĆmae) APEL/10.3 Emacs/21.2 (i386-redhat-linux-gnu) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI) |
At Tue, 03 Jun 2003 21:48:26 +0200,
Bernard Giroud wrote:
>
> > > > struct elem_G
> > > > {
> > > > unsigned char X[2];
> > > > unsigned char Y[2];
> > > > };
(snip)
> I agree it is a little more complex, but it is much more
> natural. Another aspect: this is probably a point of
> divergence between OC and gcc-cobol (aka Gobol).
Maybe I am missing something, but is there any technical
advantage of having group items defined as structures?
Otherwise, I do not see the point of changing the current
design, which is sufficiently simple.
Keisuke
- Re: [open-cobol-list] gdb support from gcc-cobol, Bernard Giroud, 2003/06/01
- Re: [open-cobol-list] gdb support from gcc-cobol, Keisuke Nishida, 2003/06/02
- Re: [open-cobol-list] gdb support from gcc-cobol, David Essex, 2003/06/02
- Re: [open-cobol-list] gdb support from gcc-cobol, Bernard Giroud, 2003/06/03
- Re: [open-cobol-list] gdb support from gcc-cobol, Keisuke Nishida, 2003/06/03
- Re: [open-cobol-list] gdb support from gcc-cobol, Bernard Giroud, 2003/06/03
- Re: [open-cobol-list] gdb support from gcc-cobol,
Keisuke Nishida <=
- Re: [open-cobol-list] gdb support from gcc-cobol, Bernard Giroud, 2003/06/05
- Re: [open-cobol-list] gdb support from gcc-cobol, Keisuke Nishida, 2003/06/05