Re: [python][patch] Inferior and Thread information support.

[Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>]

>>>>> "Phil" == Phil Muldoon <pmuldoon@redhat.com> writes:

Phil> I've no complaint to using obstacks.  This function basically
Phil> wraps/tidies the existing code that was just coded directly in a loop
Phil> in parse_find_args.  That code just realloc'd by a factor of two whenever
Phil> the buffer was too small.  This code is exactly the same, except it
Phil> has been squirrelled away in a function.  So we are not introducing or
Phil> adding any more growable types in this patch, just moving the code
Phil> bits that already existed into function.  I'm not adverse to changing
Phil> that code to use obstacks, that being said!

Just for the record -- ordinarily I try not to request cleanups to
existing code as part of a new patch.  It is nice to get cleanups, and
if you want to do them (or if there is a reason for them beyond mere
tidiness) then that is great.  But feel free to push back if I've
erroneously reviewed the context and not the patch.

Phil> +  /* Find inferior_object for the given PID.  */
Phil> +  for (inf_entry = &gdbpy_inferior_list; *inf_entry != NULL;
Phil> +       inf_entry = &(*inf_entry)->next)
Phil> +    if ((*inf_entry)->inf_obj->inferior->pid == inf->pid)
Phil> +      break;
> 
Tom> It seems strange to compare the pid fields when we could just compare
Tom> the inferior objects themselves.

Phil> Do you mean using the Python object's cmp inbuilt method here?

No, I'm just curious why that can't be more simply written:

  if ((*inf_entry)->inf_obj == inf)

Tom