From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 77458 invoked by alias); 29 Apr 2018 15:22:14 -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 77444 invoked by uid 89); 29 Apr 2018 15:22:13 -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 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=mechanical, H*f:sk:2018041, sea 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; Sun, 29 Apr 2018 15:22:12 +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 9E7281E4C4; Sun, 29 Apr 2018 11:22:10 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/40] C++ify target_ops, toward multi-target To: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20180414190953.24481-1-palves@redhat.com> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: <968579be-9689-d39a-8965-063ff97a4a13@simark.ca> Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2018 15:22:00 -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: <20180414190953.24481-1-palves@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2018-04/txt/msg00600.txt.bz2 On 2018-04-14 03:09 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: > Here's another chunk from the multi-target branch. Hi Pedro, It's kind of difficult to properly review this series, because the important non-mechanical bits are lost in a sea of mechanical changes. But I didn't find anything fundamental I would change, and all you wrote in commit logs made sense to me. Maybe one little comment about 40/40 (because I just finished looking at that patch): it might be good to add an assertion (the_native_target == nullptr) in set_native_target and one in add_target (target_factories.find (&t) == target_factories.end ()). I think it could help catch problems if somebody is trying to add a new target or change existing ones. Otherwise, I would suggest not waiting too long before merging it to avoid having to resolve too many conflicts. Thanks a lot for doing this! Simon