From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29023 invoked by alias); 5 Apr 2010 20:51:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 28882 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Apr 2010 20:50:38 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 05 Apr 2010 20:50:35 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B4682BAB71; Mon, 5 Apr 2010 16:50:33 -0400 (EDT) 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 PKZ0Gb4OGWZu; Mon, 5 Apr 2010 16:50:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47AB02BAABD; Mon, 5 Apr 2010 16:50:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6A4A6F58C2; Mon, 5 Apr 2010 13:50:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2010 20:51:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Stan Shebs Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use vectors in uploaded tracepoints Message-ID: <20100405205028.GF19194@adacore.com> References: <4BBA3E00.7060508@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4BBA3E00.7060508@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2010-04/txt/msg00081.txt.bz2 FWIW... > 1. This is now the third place that has a "char_ptr" typedef for use > with vectors. Is there any reason not to consolidate into one > typedef in defs.h? Certainly no objection on this end, although the benefits seem to be pretty small. Perhaps it would make even better sense if we added both the char_ptr and the vector definition? Would that have any negative effect in terms of amount of code? > 2. Should it be renamed to "char_p"? There is a quasi-standard of > using "_s" for struct and "_p" for pointer typedefs for vectors; but > "char_p" seems a little cryptic to me. If char_p is defined together with the associated vector, then I don't mind it. But defined on its own, I agree char_ptr is better. (not that it really matters all that much...) -- Joel