From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 115819 invoked by alias); 16 Nov 2018 14:39:05 -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 115779 invoked by uid 89); 16 Nov 2018 14:39:04 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=naked 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; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 14:39:03 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C6BA3DE0E; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 14:39:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from theo.uglyboxes.com (ovpn04.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.4]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D05660FCF; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 14:39:02 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Introduce dwarf2_cu::get_builder To: Simon Marchi Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20181023185715.23082-1-keiths@redhat.com> <077020e3a67e027bf358b899ba9ebdd4@polymtl.ca> From: Keith Seitz Message-ID: <05e40ce6-e168-186c-6d9a-b7aed1635287@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 14:39:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <077020e3a67e027bf358b899ba9ebdd4@polymtl.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-11/txt/msg00252.txt.bz2 On 11/16/18 5:19 AM, Simon Marchi wrote: > I noticed there were still some "naked" access to builder (places > that don't use get_builder). fixup_go_packaging is one, for example. > Is it expected or should they be converted too?> I must have missed them in my initial pass. It is my intention to follow Sergio's recommendation to make "builder" private. Thank you for your comments. Keith