From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16312 invoked by alias); 10 Jul 2018 21:50:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 16209 invoked by uid 89); 10 Jul 2018 21:50:19 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=H*f:sk:2018062, Hx-languages-length:1162 X-HELO: mailsec114.isp.belgacom.be Received: from mailsec114.isp.belgacom.be (HELO mailsec114.isp.belgacom.be) (195.238.20.110) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 21:50:17 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=skynet.be; i=@skynet.be; q=dns/txt; s=securemail; t=1531259417; x=1562795417; h=message-id:subject:from:to:date:in-reply-to:references: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZgBrdbhhUicaTiHDrtpJF1WZZOmJHtK5lbk6TUPSCRY=; b=ETmqmiAdh5wWUOKxQpD4NP6Dlz+DjskTxLv56jf/iEQ5FL8rUKnh8Fsz 6nSoJ06AJt+GTqKbIJHhKenmDBnJnQ==; Received: from 160.177-177-91.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be (HELO md) ([91.177.177.160]) by relay.skynet.be with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-GCM-SHA384; 10 Jul 2018 23:50:15 +0200 Message-ID: <1531259415.32316.2.camel@skynet.be> Subject: Re: [RFA_v3 2/8] Implement frame apply [all | COUNT | -COUNT | id ID... ] [FLAG]... COMMAND. From: Philippe Waroquiers To: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 21:50:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <922c099e-4580-d804-1357-907bbe0b90ad@redhat.com> References: <20180624183708.888-1-philippe.waroquiers@skynet.be> <20180624183708.888-3-philippe.waroquiers@skynet.be> <922c099e-4580-d804-1357-907bbe0b90ad@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-07/txt/msg00287.txt.bz2 On Mon, 2018-07-09 at 20:15 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote: > I noticed that as is, frame_apply_command_count is going to parse CMD > for parse_flags_qcs for every iteration. I wonder whether it wouldn't > be clearer to split frame_apply_command_count after that CMD parsing > to a separate function that is called by both frame_apply_id_command > and frame_apply_command_count. Thanks for the comments. I have just posted RFA_v4, which I think handles all the comments as suggested, except the above : currently, all 3 'frame apply' commands are directly calling frame_apply_command_count after having established the starting frame and count. I think this is preferable, as we have the flag parsing and error checking about missing cmd at only one place. The only consequence I see is that flags will be parsed for each range of frames, but that will for sure not be performance critical (we parse already twice the LEVEL arg). So, I have added a sentence in the frame_apply_command_count function to describe that CMD optionally starts with qcs flags. Thanks Philippe