Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
To: Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>
Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>,
		Hui Zhu <teawater@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFA, 1 of 3] save/restore process record, part 1 (exec_entry)
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 04:04:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20091017040352.GI5272@adacore.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4AD91C32.2090900@vmware.com>

> 2009-10-16  Hui Zhu  <teawater@gmail.com>
> 	    Michael Snyder  <msnyder@vmware.com>
> 
> 	* record.c (record_exec_entry): New function.  Emulate one
> 	instruction, forward or backward.  Abstracted from record_wait.
> 	(record_wait) Call record_exec_entry.

I can personnally only comment on details, since I don't know much
about process record. Not sure who from the Global Maintainers actually
know much about it except you, Michael :).

> +static inline void
> +record_exec_entry (struct regcache *regcache, struct gdbarch *gdbarch,
> +                   struct record_entry *entry)

We're really pushing for having all functions properly documented.
Can you add a comment explaining that this function does? The function
name makes it more or less obvious, I guess, but I'd personally rather
have a consistent (mindless) approach of documenting everything rather
than having to judge on a case-by-case basis.

Also, I can't help but wonder about the use of "inline" in this case.
I'm always reluctant to use this sort of feature until I can be proven
that this helps performance. Since this is a static function, I would
imagine that the compiler would have more knowledge of whether the
function should be inlined or not? Or is that too naive?

Other than than, seems like a pretty mechanical change...

-- 
Joel


  reply	other threads:[~2009-10-17  4:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-10-17  1:27 Michael Snyder
2009-10-17  4:04 ` Joel Brobecker [this message]
2009-10-17 17:02   ` Michael Snyder
2009-10-20 22:58     ` Michael Snyder
2009-10-21  2:38       ` Hui Zhu

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20091017040352.GI5272@adacore.com \
    --to=brobecker@adacore.com \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
    --cc=msnyder@vmware.com \
    --cc=teawater@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox