From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19759 invoked by alias); 18 Sep 2009 16:44:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 19745 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Sep 2009 16:44:12 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:44:08 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F78F10C63; Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:44:07 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EE5410927; Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:44:07 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MogZ4-0007Jp-8D; Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:44:06 -0400 Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:44:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Pedro Alves Cc: Ulrich Weigand , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Mark Kettenis , brobecker@adacore.com, teawater@gmail.com, msnyder@vmware.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Check solib bfd arch Message-ID: <20090918164406.GA28102@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Pedro Alves , Ulrich Weigand , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Mark Kettenis , brobecker@adacore.com, teawater@gmail.com, msnyder@vmware.com References: <200909181553.45603.pedro@codesourcery.com> <200909181614.n8IGEWWB006667@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> <20090918162511.GA25315@caradoc.them.org> <200909181741.43702.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200909181741.43702.pedro@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2009-09/txt/msg00602.txt.bz2 On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 05:41:43PM +0100, Pedro Alves wrote: > > It does seem to me like the test should be symmetric here: > > a = bfd_get_arch_info (abfd); > > if (b->compatible (b, a) != b > > && a->compatible (a, b) != a) > > I think that's the same in practice as Joel's original > patch then, since `compatible' either returns either > NULL, a or b. This still catches the > obviously-incompatible cases, so may be worth keeping, > while anything smarter is probably not worth the effort > then. You're right, this is the same in practice. I don't have a strong preference as to which form we use; whichever folks find clearer. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery