From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5912 invoked by alias); 15 Jul 2013 15:58:35 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 5902 invoked by uid 89); 15 Jul 2013 15:58:35 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.1 Received: from Unknown (HELO glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (83.163.83.176) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 15:58:34 +0000 Received: from glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.5/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r6FFwHZc021743; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 17:58:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.5/8.14.3/Submit) id r6FFwG2c031471; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 17:58:16 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 15:58:00 -0000 Message-Id: <201307151558.r6FFwG2c031471@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: arnez@linux.vnet.ibm.com CC: lgustavo@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com In-reply-to: <87zjtnsupy.fsf@br87z6lw.de.ibm.com> (message from Andreas Arnez on Mon, 15 Jul 2013 17:34:17 +0200) Subject: Re: [ping 2] [RFA][PATCH v4 0/5] Add TDB regset support References: <87zju3intq.fsf@br87z6lw.de.ibm.com> <87d2qt83au.fsf@br87z6lw.de.ibm.com> <874nbwtdgk.fsf_-_@br87z6lw.de.ibm.com> <51E3F8B3.10109@codesourcery.com> <87zjtnsupy.fsf@br87z6lw.de.ibm.com> X-SW-Source: 2013-07/txt/msg00352.txt.bz2 > From: Andreas Arnez > Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 17:34:17 +0200 > > Luis Machado writes: > > > I didn't go through your last update of the patch, but FTR i still > > think we should make the core file sections static and store them in > > some form of array instead of hardcoding their contents in numerous > > function calls. > > In the PowerPC case the patch includes four call-back invocations, all > contained in a 20-line iterator function. I'd hardly call that > "numerous function calls". And I consider it an improvement over the > original code, which had six hard-coded static array initializers with > various copy-/pasted lines, plus the logic for selecting the correct > array. The improvement is even more drastic for S/390. Don't you > agree? Or do you see even more potential for improvement? Well, I really do agree with Luis. Your solution is just harder to read and I don't see the limited amout of copy/pasted lines as a problem. The logic to select the right array is fairly straightforword.