From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 86151 invoked by alias); 2 Apr 2018 02:44:55 -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 86072 invoked by uid 89); 2 Apr 2018 02:44:52 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=management X-HELO: simark.ca Received: from simark.ca (HELO simark.ca) (158.69.221.121) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 02 Apr 2018 02:44:51 +0000 Received: from [10.0.0.11] (unknown [192.222.164.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ACB611E4B2; Sun, 1 Apr 2018 22:44:49 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [RFA 00/10] Remove some cleanups from linespec.c To: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20180401163539.15314-1-tom@tromey.com> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: <15b84c9d-195b-3f35-9007-d7e990b9bd72@simark.ca> Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2018 02:44:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180401163539.15314-1-tom@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2018-04/txt/msg00036.txt.bz2 On 2018-04-01 12:35 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: > This series removes many (but not all) cleanups from linespec.c. > Generally the removals are done in the normal way: replacing manual > memory management with a self-managing data structure. > > I've tried to make each patch relatively small to make them simpler to > review. > > In a few cases the patch required changes outside of linespec.c. > > A couple of the patches (at least #2 and #10) are obvious, though of > course it doesn't hurt to read them anyhow. > > Regression tested by the buildbot. I've also built each patch in the > series locally and run it through the gdb.linespec tests, while I was > tracking down the failures described in patch #7 (though of course the > series has changed slightly since then). > > Tom > Hi Tom, The patches I haven't commented on LGTM. Thanks! Simon