From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2030 invoked by alias); 7 Nov 2007 06:34:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 2019 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Nov 2007 06:34:07 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 07 Nov 2007 06:34:03 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.1) with ESMTP id lA76Y1IQ018051; Wed, 7 Nov 2007 01:34:01 -0500 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [10.11.255.20]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id lA76Y19D027675; Wed, 7 Nov 2007 01:34:01 -0500 Received: from free.oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br (vpn-14-173.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.14.173]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id lA76XxlI000404; Wed, 7 Nov 2007 01:34:00 -0500 Received: from free.oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by free.oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id lA76XvQm011922; Wed, 7 Nov 2007 04:33:57 -0200 Received: (from aoliva@localhost) by free.oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id lA76XsJM011921; Wed, 7 Nov 2007 04:33:54 -0200 To: DJ Delorie Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: stabilize .gcc_except_table with or without -g References: <200711052041.lA5Kf8lB016106@greed.delorie.com> From: Alexandre Oliva Errors-To: aoliva@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 06:34:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <200711052041.lA5Kf8lB016106@greed.delorie.com> (DJ Delorie's message of "Mon\, 5 Nov 2007 15\:41\:08 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-11/txt/msg00302.txt.bz2 On Nov 5, 2007, DJ Delorie wrote: >> Should new the compare function be moved into libiberty proper? > If it were to be moved into libiberty, I think (1) it would need to > guard against NULL arguments, and (2) it must assume that two strings > may compare equal. Libiberty functions shouldn't abort if they can > return a meaningful error value. Works for me. > As for should it be in libiberty... I think it would be reasonable for > each hash type to have a "stock" implementation of hashing a simple > string. But this is not about hashing at all. We're talking about no more than a wrapper for strcmp with different static types for the arguments. So I'm not sure it's all that useful for libiberty, but I can see that it could be convenient. Your call, really. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}