This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH v4] gdb: ADI support
- From: Weimin Pan <weimin dot pan at oracle dot com>
- To: <qiyaoltc at gmail dot com>
- Cc: <jose dot marchesi at oracle dot com>, <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 12:19:28 -0700 (PDT)
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] gdb: ADI support
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
----- Original Message -----
> From: qiyaoltc@gmail.com
> To: jose.marchesi@oracle.com
> Cc: weimin.pan@oracle.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 9:44:55 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] gdb: ADI support
>
> jose.marchesi@oracle.com (Jose E. Marchesi) writes:
>
> > General question: what's wrong with using a simple linked list of
> > structs if that is the developer's preference, and/or it follows the
> > current style of the surrounding code? (Not saying it is in this case,
> > that's up to Weimin to say.)
>
> It makes the code a little bit unnecessarily complicated, IOW, std::list
> or std::forward_list can make it simpler. My preference is to use
> standard c++ data structure rather than re-inventing it again.
Obviously I missed your comment of using std::list but it's not clear to me why
you think a simple linked list can be a little bit unnecessarily complicated.
Given the fact that we need to backport this new feature to older gdb's, e.g.
dev-toolset6, one question is do we need to resort to the linked list solution
if the std list implementation is not available in older gdb versions? As of now,
we have one diversion already - uiout->text ("\n") VS ui_out_text (uiout, "\n").