From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14761 invoked by alias); 14 Jan 2014 19:30:28 -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 14749 invoked by uid 89); 14 Jan 2014 19:30:27 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 19:30:27 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s0EJUOfA013773 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 14:30:25 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s0EJULcL002131; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 14:30:24 -0500 Message-ID: <52D5904D.5030702@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 19:30:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Tromey CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC 28/32] convert to_get_section_table References: <1389640367-5571-1-git-send-email-tromey@redhat.com> <1389640367-5571-29-git-send-email-tromey@redhat.com> <52D58EB9.1030504@redhat.com> <87ha96uzus.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <87ha96uzus.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-01/txt/msg00470.txt.bz2 On 01/14/2014 07:28 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: > > Pedro> Looks fine to me. >>> - struct target_section_table *(*to_get_section_table) (struct >>> target_ops *); >>> + struct target_section_table *(*to_get_section_table) (struct >>> target_ops *) >>> + TARGET_DEFAULT_RETURN (0); > > Pedro> (I noticed now that methods that return a pointer could > Pedro> say 'TARGET_DEFAULT_RETURN (NULL)' instead of 0. I'm guessing > Pedro> you wrote 0 in the previous version where TARGET_DEFAULT > Pedro> would require a digit.) > > Yeah. Unfortunately I didn't think of this early enough. I can fix > this if you like, but unlike other rewrites, I'd prefer to do it as a > cleanup patch on top. I found the hard way that modifications to these > lines cause conflicts to bubble up through the entire patch series. Yeah, please leave it as is. We can always clean up afterwards. -- Pedro Alves