From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18008 invoked by alias); 26 Nov 2012 16:37:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 17828 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Nov 2012 16:37:17 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_STOCKGEN,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO 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, 26 Nov 2012 16:37:09 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E59601C7FF8; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 11:37:08 -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 WKhMq9m+q8Rz; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 11:37:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B51E01C7FF7; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 11:37:08 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9573CC2708; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 17:37:06 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 16:37:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Tom Tromey Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: FYI: use SYMBOL_SYMTAB accessor Message-ID: <20121126163706.GA3089@adacore.com> References: <87r4ngicmg.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87r4ngicmg.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) 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: 2012-11/txt/msg00667.txt.bz2 > While working on a different patch I noticed a few spots that were not > using the SYMBOL_SYMTAB accessor macro. > > This patch fixes these places. I'm checking it in as obvious. Thanks! I am wondering if should consider making these structures opaque Aside from the amount of work to do in order to achieve that, do you see a negative is aiming for this goal for this particular struct? (and all the symtab-related structs)? [I've always wanted to make all complex and semi-complex structures opaque :-)] -- Joel