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 3AF2F3858C01 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2023 14:57:18 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 3AF2F3858C01 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=simark.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=simark.ca ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 3AF2F3858C01 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=158.69.221.121 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1697727439; cv=none; b=g+uuPF4jLvhzmcwCpM2OAw09pfLTowpUhefDwJM9Bg1Ob4RgJAtzyPkwQtxpPOj0Kr5KtFhvDzW099GbvtyUrz2YvD+7izxBAHVfKhYsXIv/gwFPtiZu7QBL0ZI7CBf9gwpkrQaOZbeIedGrF85h5Wiv6fL27EPrlk9Pvd3YGkQ= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1697727439; c=relaxed/simple; bh=AmMX8g1wA1dAD+veqcanbBsoIDsuSx2yDiWdvbb3Pqw=; h=DKIM-Signature:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:From; b=sofmNBFWhuSrd9UbIGtc5pY+yuLF4uhk+/CRHVI5ENO+JOl3WbqXzbJiD2OoNrlC5TqHu3FD9v6KVjU9/bHD5NjPPBk5kzOql1pC488qZnFxeIlMrS2aP2VhgnxSL/s8O4CBj28xFE0RLdb9mCQz30UWVPs9Ghmea0NSUIBAWaM= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=simark.ca; s=mail; t=1697727437; bh=AmMX8g1wA1dAD+veqcanbBsoIDsuSx2yDiWdvbb3Pqw=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=e//wXc6n6CTQniyZQ+nNH2+xe3DEfld4uDoO8BWOL5xa/TfDqViWPIiTevDR7RCIH u5aj2EMWjmzW/fcWTSQqhumeGguZKN5DVjFG1gdRc8XFbpG5pSHrT9UYpluR4BlsXK FvSjios78hUROrIB0+nNiD411oOqLruIt7yW2Oww= Received: from [172.16.0.192] (192-222-143-198.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.143.198]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C69F91E00F; Thu, 19 Oct 2023 10:57:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2023 10:57:17 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/24] C++ification of struct so_list Content-Language: fr To: Lancelot SIX , Simon Marchi Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20231019110906.p3osckf6hkbz2dj3@khazad-dum> From: Simon Marchi In-Reply-To: <20231019110906.p3osckf6hkbz2dj3@khazad-dum> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On 10/19/23 07:09, Lancelot SIX wrote: > Hi Simon, > > I went through the series again, sent a few extra small remarks, and > FWIW, it looks reasonable to me. > > I do agree with Pedro's point that "struct so" becomes a bit harder to > search for, and "shobj" would have less false-positives, but I > nevertheless ok with using "so". If it turns out to be a hurdle, we > can always change it later. Since you both agree with each other, I'll go with shobj. > > I have tested the AMDGPU part of the series (gdb.rocm/*.exp), both on > top of master and downstream ROCgdb. > > So with the various nits fixed: > Reviewed-By: Lancelot Six Thanks for reviewing, I will push with all the small nits fixed. Simon