From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23879 invoked by alias); 16 Feb 2012 17:16:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 23865 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Feb 2012 17:16:08 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,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; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:15:51 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB8031C66C3; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:15:50 -0500 (EST) 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 oZ7wvfie9GE1; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:15:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84C971C65D1; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:15:50 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id BA7B7145615; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 21:15:47 +0400 (RET) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:19:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Tristan Gingold Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org ml" Subject: Re: RFA: [Ada] extract known tasks array parameters from symbol table Message-ID: <20120216171547.GD14803@adacore.com> References: <7A06C670-A574-4AE4-A89C-2532671E5F64@adacore.com> <20120213161529.GE3474@adacore.com> <5F4AB963-E82C-4206-B479-E46311CDABB0@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5F4AB963-E82C-4206-B479-E46311CDABB0@adacore.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: 2012-02/txt/msg00333.txt.bz2 > here is the new version, taking into account your comments: I have > mostly reshaped ada_set_current_inferior_known_tasks_addr, tell me if > the new form is ok (and then I will test it more thoroughly). Overall, that looks good to me. I see what you mean in terms of supporting the stripped runtime (this near duplication is ugly), but I don't see an efficient way to avoid it. Just one minor comment: > @@ -865,27 +848,95 @@ get_known_tasks_addr (const char *name) > static void > ada_set_current_inferior_known_tasks_addr (struct ada_tasks_inferior_data *data) I would change the name of the function since it's doing more and more than just setting the address. Something like "set_ada_tasks_inferior_data" for instance, or maybe "ada_tasks_inferior_data_sniffer", etc. Can you also update the comment to just say that it sets all fields in DATA instead of specifying each one? It's a bit more vague, but still true nonetheless, and will avoid having to update the comment if we add new fields again in the future. Thank you! -- Joel