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 2ED193950C03 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 19:52:24 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 2ED193950C03 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 [172.16.0.95] (192-222-181-218.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.181.218]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9ED431E58D; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 15:52:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb: Have allocate_target_description return a unique_ptr To: Andrew Burgess , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20201005194728.699823-1-andrew.burgess@embecosm.com> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: <52c060fa-4dff-7fc6-fd9b-3f8fe53b6ba9@simark.ca> Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2020 15:52:21 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20201005194728.699823-1-andrew.burgess@embecosm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: tl Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.3 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: Mon, 05 Oct 2020 19:52:25 -0000 On 2020-10-05 3:47 p.m., Andrew Burgess wrote: > Below is a rebased version of a patch I posted here: > > https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2020-July/170639.html > > this recieved positive feedback at the time but was buried in some > other thread so may not have been widely seen. I thought it was > probably worth reposting this before merging just to see if anyone > else had any thoughts. > > There's a lot of change here, but all of the *.c files that are marked > 'Regenerate' in the ChangeLog follow much the same pattern, review one > of them and you've reviewed them all. > > Thanks, > Andrew You already have a +1 from me on this (I was the one who pushed you to do it :)). Simon