From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4515 invoked by alias); 4 Jun 2010 21:40:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 4506 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Jun 2010 21:40:35 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Jun 2010 21:40:29 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o54Le68w014267 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 4 Jun 2010 17:40:07 -0400 Received: from psique.localnet (vpn-227-130.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.227.130]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o54Le6sX015695; Fri, 4 Jun 2010 17:40:06 -0400 From: Sergio Durigan Junior To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, tromey@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Constify `struct expression' in operator_length Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 21:40:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.2 (Linux/2.6.32.12-115.fc12.x86_64; KDE/4.4.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Joel Brobecker References: <201006041819.00286.sergiodj@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201006041840.05417.sergiodj@redhat.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: 2010-06/txt/msg00140.txt.bz2 On Friday 04 June 2010 18:32:07, Tom Tromey wrote: > >>>>> "Sergio" == Sergio Durigan Junior writes: > > Sergio> Due to Joel's suggestion on > Sergio> , I > Sergio> decided to post this patch in order to constify the `struct > Sergio> expression' argument of the operator_length class of functions. > > Sergio> Ok to apply? > > Yes. Thanks for doing this, I think more const-correctness (when > appropriate, of course) helps make the code more understandable. Thanks, checked in. -- Sergio Durigan Junior Red Hat