This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFA: implement ambiguous linespec proposal
- From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- To: Matt Rice <ratmice at gmail dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 14:37:54 -0600
- Subject: Re: RFA: implement ambiguous linespec proposal
- References: <email@example.com> <CACTLOFrCdE7bcM8baby7ydPfg4+zcm0V6_nMdKdYXyy==WOLDg@mail.gmail.com>
>>>>> "Matt" == Matt Rice <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
Tom> I'd appreciate comments on this patch.
Matt> In the following snippet, the initial comment doesn't mention
Matt> destroy_linespec_result, and some of the field comments mention
Matt> that the caller is responsible for freeing.
Matt> destroy_linespec_result seems to fulfill this obligation,
Matt> I imagine that the comments just predate destroy_linespec_result, or
Matt> there is an OR situation e.g. if the caller wants to save some fields
Matt> they are responsible. Anyhow it'd be nice to clarify that in the
Yeah, that's what happened.
Thanks for noticing this; I cleaned up the comments on my local branch.