From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18776 invoked by alias); 18 Sep 2009 16:41:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 18767 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Sep 2009 16:41:27 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:41:23 +0000 Received: (qmail 16172 invoked from network); 18 Sep 2009 16:41:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 18 Sep 2009 16:41:21 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: Daniel Jacobowitz Subject: Re: [RFA] Check solib bfd arch Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:41:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 Cc: 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> In-Reply-To: <20090918162511.GA25315@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200909181741.43702.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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/msg00600.txt.bz2 On Friday 18 September 2009 17:25:11, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > A description can cover many areas, but is not required to cover any > of them. I don't think anything should rely on "is there a > description". Good point, although we could check if the description included an arch. > 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. -- Pedro Alves