From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-101912-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 11050 invoked by alias); 24 May 2013 09:07:33 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 11039 invoked by uid 89); 24 May 2013 09:07:33 -0000
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
Received: from mail-lb0-f180.google.com (HELO mail-lb0-f180.google.com) (209.85.217.180)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Fri, 24 May 2013 09:07:31 +0000
Received: by mail-lb0-f180.google.com with SMTP id r10so4376685lbi.39        for <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>; Fri, 24 May 2013 02:07:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.112.35.136 with SMTP id h8mr8621700lbj.78.1369386448849;        Fri, 24 May 2013 02:07:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [130.237.20.66] (s1499.it.kth.se. [130.237.20.66])        by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id zo6sm6186918lbb.9.2013.05.24.02.07.27        for <multiple recipients>        (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128);        Fri, 24 May 2013 02:07:27 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <1369386446.8127.51.camel@s1499.it.kth.se>
Subject: Re: Small patch to enable build of gdb-7.6 for GNU/Hurd
From: Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com>
To: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
Cc: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>, Sergio Durigan Junior	 <sergiodj@redhat.com>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 09:07:00 -0000
In-Reply-To: <519F2A7A.4050002@redhat.com>
References: <1369326967.8127.33.camel@s1499.it.kth.se>	 <m3mwrlm6al.fsf@redhat.com> <20130524042734.GG4017@adacore.com>	 <519F2A7A.4050002@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2013-05/txt/msg00918.txt.bz2

On Fri, 2013-05-24 at 09:53 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 05/24/2013 05:27 AM, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:59:46PM -0300, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote:
> >> Thanks for your patch, Svante.
> >>
> >> On Thursday, May 23 2013, Svante Signell wrote:
> >>
...
> > And quite honestly, I find this use of a macro in the middle of
> > a function quite ugly and unnecessary, no matter what was done
> > before.  My preference mirrors Tom's suggestion, but failing that,
> > I'd rather FMT be a const char * or a const char [].
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> const char fmt[] = "..." is better than 'const char *', as the
> latter gives you an unnecessary extra pointer.
> 
> Make that 'static const char fmt[] = "...";' even.
> 
> But really alloca for potentially large/unbounded buffers is evil.
> xstrprintf plus a cleanup would definitely be my preference.

I will change to use xstrprintf instead. Updated patch with ChangeLog
entry will follow shortly. Is it OK to modify also the other (preceding)
function in the same way (for consistency)?