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 20E0538930FE for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 12:38:50 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 20E0538930FE Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=simark.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=simark@simark.ca Received: from [10.0.0.11] (173-246-6-90.qc.cable.ebox.net [173.246.6.90]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B135A1E794; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 08:38:49 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] Remove some macros from exec.h and progspace.h To: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20200722033444.18522-1-tom@tromey.com> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: <13552ab4-55e1-123a-fcb5-2b7473e47005@simark.ca> Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 08:38:45 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200722033444.18522-1-tom@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: fr Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 12:38:51 -0000 On 2020-07-21 11:34 p.m., Tom Tromey wrote: > This series removes some macros from exec.h and progspace.h. In > particular, macros that hide that some global variable is used are > removed. > > I find these macros somewhat obscure. I think patches #2 and #6 show > why -- it turns out that some code here was easily parameterized and > did not need to use a global, or even save/restore the current program > space. > > Let me know what you think. Like the other series along these lines, > I don't see any need to check them in before the branch is made. Thanks for doing this! That makes the dependency on current_program_space more apparent. I'm sure in many cases it will be possible to change the reference to current_program_space to be a parameter, your patch enables that. Simon