From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12699 invoked by alias); 14 Jan 2014 19:29:04 -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 12684 invoked by uid 89); 14 Jan 2014 19:29:03 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.0 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 19:29:03 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s0EJT1rN023317 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 14:29:01 -0500 Received: from barimba (ovpn-113-85.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.85]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s0EJSxSk008640 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 14 Jan 2014 14:29:00 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Pedro Alves 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> Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 19:29:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <52D58EB9.1030504@redhat.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Tue, 14 Jan 2014 19:23:37 +0000") Message-ID: <87ha96uzus.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2014-01/txt/msg00468.txt.bz2 >>>>> "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. Tom