From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 102391 invoked by alias); 19 Sep 2018 18:06:36 -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 102174 invoked by uid 89); 19 Sep 2018 18:06:35 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: rock.gnat.com Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 18:06:34 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA82356123; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 14:06:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id m7aG0f-B+SH5; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 14:06:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A960956121; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 14:06:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D901F8588B; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 11:06:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 18:06:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Rainer Orth Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Provide pid_to_exec_file on Solaris (PR tdep/17903) Message-ID: <20180919180630.GS19172@adacore.com> References: <20180919143558.GP19172@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) X-SW-Source: 2018-09/txt/msg00706.txt.bz2 > >> PR tdep/17903 > >> * procfs.c (procfs_target): Declare pid_to_exec_file. > >> (procfs_target::pid_to_exec_file): New. > > > > Nice :). This is OK for me as is; one question: Have you considered > > the use of an std::string for the variable "name"? I thought about it, > > and I'm not sure it would make the code all that better, but thought > > I'd mention it again, in case you or someone else sees something > > I don't see. > > TBH, I know close to nothing about C++, so rely on others for > suggestions here. In that case, I would go with what you have now considering the current interface for this method, and possibly enhance it later as a followup. It's not obvious to me that switching that part to C++ is a win. -- Joel