From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 332B9386EC64 for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 19:33:29 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 332B9386EC64 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=simark.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=simark@simark.ca Received: from [10.0.0.11] (173-246-6-90.qc.cable.ebox.net [173.246.6.90]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 831681E58D; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 14:33:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove redundant typedefs To: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20201203192419.2861728-1-tromey@adacore.com> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: <056c4f42-4e85-dcaf-59e1-8483e9b6f876@simark.ca> Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2020 14:33:28 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20201203192419.2861728-1-tromey@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: fr Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2020 19:33:31 -0000 On 2020-12-03 2:24 p.m., Tom Tromey wrote: > @@ -794,7 +794,7 @@ struct breakpoint > gdbpy_breakpoint_object *py_bp_object = NULL; > > /* Same as py_bp_object, but for Scheme. */ > - gdbscm_breakpoint_object *scm_bp_object = NULL; > + breakpoint_smob *scm_bp_object = NULL; In this case, I think it would make sense to keep the "gdbscm_breakpoint_object" name, first for symmetry with Python, but also because it's more descriptive than "breakpoint_smob", when you are not in the guile code. Since the code in scm-breakpoint.c uses breakpoint_smob everywhere (and in the context of guile, it's clear what a _smob is), you could just add a using breakpoint_smob = gdbscm_breakpoint_object; in that file. But other than that, this LGTM, thanks! Simon