This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [rfa] symbol hashing, part 2/n - ALL_BLOCK_SYMBOLS
On Fri, Oct 12, 2001 at 12:16:06PM -0400, Elena Zannoni wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
> > On Thu, Oct 11, 2001 at 07:54:50PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 11, 2001 at 07:46:33PM -0400, Elena Zannoni wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Daniel,
> > > > Thanks so much for doing this. It makes it so much easier.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I looked ths over and it seems to work, except that I would really
> > > > prefer the change to printcmd.c split in two. The first bit to
> > > > rationalize that "if (func)..." code. This would have with it all
> > > > the indentation changes as well. The code as it is now doesn't really
> > > > make much sense. So, that looks a good change to me. But it has nothing
> > > > to do with the new macro. After that change is in, you can introduce
> > > > the macro in printcmd.c w/o having all the indent changes.
> > > > It also makes it easier to distinguish a no-op change (the macro) from
> > > > the other one.
> > >
> > > OK. Would you prefer I resubmit this patch broken up further, then?
> > > I could do that.
> >
> > Having reduced it to truly obvious, I'm going to commit the attached
> > patch, unless someone objects strenuously in the near future. A diff
> > ignoring whitespace shows that I am only moving a brace from before a
> > for loop to after it; the for loop will never be executed unless the if
> > is taken, anyway. This'll shrink the other patch quite a bit.
> >
>
> Yes, thanks!!
So let it be written, etc. etc. Committed.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer