On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 01:26:46 +0100, Doug Evans wrote:
> Just some nits, no need to resubmit for review.

Resubmitting it as a request for doc approval from Eli.


>  > +static int tp_array_compar_asc;
> 
> This should probably have a comment.

Done, I forgot.


>  > +
>  > +/* Sort an array for struct thread_info pointers by their ascending NUM.  */
>  > +
>  > +static int
>  > +tp_array_compar (const void *ap_voidp, const void *bp_voidp)
[...]
>  > +  return ((((*ap)->num > (*bp)->num) - ((*ap)->num < (*bp)->num))
>  > +	  * (tp_array_compar_asc ? +1 : -1));
>  > +}
> 
> This triggers my "passing parameters as global variables" alarm,
> and while one could instead have two different functions,

I believe qsort_r() is more appropriate, using two different functions I would
feel rather as a workaround of missing qsort_r(). But I guess (I cannot easily
test due to missing slaves and no patch testing feature in Sergio's Buildbot
yet) some of the supported platforms do not provide qsort_r() so it would need
a new gdb/gnulib/ module. But at least one of my gdb/gnulib/ patches is still
under review so it would create dependency between unrelated patchsets.


>  > +  if (cmd && (check_for_argument (&cmd, "-asc", strlen ("-asc"))))
> 
> cmd != NULL

BTW this has been copy-paste but yes, my fault, I am aware of it.


Thanks,
Jan