From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26589 invoked by alias); 5 Feb 2008 22:32:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 26581 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Feb 2008 22:32:13 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Feb 2008 22:31:55 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F9232AA034 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 17:31:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id TgOhymj8PiQA for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 17:31:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF9332AA033 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 17:31:53 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8DD1CE7ACB; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 14:31:51 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 22:32:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] Make symbol completion language-specific Message-ID: <20080205223151.GA3727@adacore.com> References: <20071228122825.GC24450@adacore.com> <20080129172800.GA3773@caradoc.them.org> <20080204231510.GI21614@adacore.com> <20080204232951.GA31411@caradoc.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080204232951.GA31411@caradoc.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i 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 X-SW-Source: 2008-02/txt/msg00116.txt.bz2 > > If I were to use a VEC, I would have to return a copy of the contents > > of the VEC, which seems silly because I'd end up immediately destroying > > an array that I just copied. > > It still saves you having to write your own push and pop. But, hey, > you already have them... Personally I'd rather do the copy than have > my own set of accessors, but that's only my preference. I don't have a strong preference either, but your point about having to redefine some accessors is a good one. I've committed the patch as is, and will do the VEC replacement as a separate patch. Thanks Daniel, -- Joel