From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15331 invoked by alias); 20 Jul 2004 23:18:53 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 15104 invoked from network); 20 Jul 2004 23:18:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 20 Jul 2004 23:18:51 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1Bn3rw-0002B2-L1; Tue, 20 Jul 2004 19:17:56 -0400 Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 23:18:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: David Lecomber Cc: patches Subject: Re: Dwarf2 Producer info Message-ID: <20040720231756.GA8250@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: David Lecomber , patches References: <1090362598.21483.108.camel@cpc4-oxfd5-5-0-cust12.oxfd.cable.ntl.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1090362598.21483.108.camel@cpc4-oxfd5-5-0-cust12.oxfd.cable.ntl.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-SW-Source: 2004-07/txt/msg00270.txt.bz2 On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:29:58PM +0100, David Lecomber wrote: > Hi > > This is an obvious extension to plug a gap. > > I've some more changes to come that make use of this (specifically to > take account of broken g77) and also fix some longstanding array issues, > but I'm getting this easy one in the source before inflicting the > complex one on the world.. if anyone has a sharper eye than me for the > code formatting rules, please feel free to shout out! I guess changing behavior based on producer is less gross than a lot of our existing hacks... > + const char* producer; > + "const char *" > /* The generic symbol table building routines have separate lists > for Please use a mailer which does not line wrap patches. > + static void set_cu_producer (const char*, struct dwarf2_cu *); "const char *" > + if (attr) > + set_cu_producer (DW_STRING (attr), cu); > + else > + set_cu_producer(NULL, cu); set_cu_producer (NULL, cu); Is set_cu_producer going to do anything else? Otherwise I don't see the point of the wrapper function. -- Daniel Jacobowitz