From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1425 invoked by alias); 3 Dec 2014 17:36:19 -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 1405 invoked by uid 89); 3 Dec 2014 17:36:18 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 03 Dec 2014 17:36:18 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id sB3HaFaa030231 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 3 Dec 2014 12:36:15 -0500 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-31.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.31]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id sB3HaCAL023759 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 3 Dec 2014 12:36:14 -0500 Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 17:36:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Doug Evans Cc: gdb-patches Subject: Re: [patch 0/2] Unify lookup_symbol_in_objfile_symtabs Message-ID: <20141203173611.GA30004@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20141203170650.GA25020@host2.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-12/txt/msg00070.txt.bz2 On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 18:18:44 +0100, Doug Evans wrote: > I'd say go with no-const. I would also say so. But is this also an approval for [patch 2/2]? It may be also obvious one. Thanks, Jan