From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7121 invoked by alias); 7 Apr 2010 05:25:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 7109 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Apr 2010 05:25:27 -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; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 05:25:23 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 543AA2BAAF3; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 01:25:21 -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 nJ1BZZzWJYvJ; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 01:25:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20BEB2BAAE9; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 01:25:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6A46FF58C2; Tue, 6 Apr 2010 22:25:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 05:25:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Stan Shebs Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use vectors in uploaded tracepoints Message-ID: <20100407052514.GG19194@adacore.com> References: <4BBA3E00.7060508@codesourcery.com> <20100405205028.GF19194@adacore.com> <4BBA62EC.7060601@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4BBA62EC.7060601@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/msg00118.txt.bz2 > The vector definition is probably harmless, although I'm generally > reluctant to rely on the compiler + linker always doing the right > thing with masses of static inline functions coming from headers. > No doubt people will tell me I'm being paranoid, and the build would > *never* fail with a complaint about duplicate symbols. :-) I tend to be paranoid too, so that's at least two of us ;-). As I said, whatever option you end up choosing will be fine. (in those cases, when none of the options have clear benefits, I tend to stick to the laziest one - maybe that's going to be most useful feedback of the whole thread??? :-P) -- Joel