From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10335 invoked by alias); 23 Oct 2002 23:04:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 10320 invoked from network); 23 Oct 2002 23:04:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 23 Oct 2002 23:04:06 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 549E93D4A; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 19:04:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3DB72AE4.1040908@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 16:04:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020824 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Carlton Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch] some mindless additions of BLOCK_ macros References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg00490.txt.bz2 > I recently noticed that the BLOCK_ macros weren't used everywhere they > could be. I know Andrew doesn't like macros, but given that these > ones are used almost everywhere, they might as well be used > everywhere. Yep. It's more that I like opaque types - it is all about `control' - with an opaque type it simply isn't possible to sneak in [old] code that grubs around in the internals. You could consider block.[hc]? (I need to come clean and admit that I'm quietly moving all the frame specific stuff out of blockframe.c and into frame.c so it can be opaque. I suspect everone guessed this long ago, though :-) > I've tested the parse.c part of this by doing a make check, the > x86-64-tdep.c part by doing an all targets build and noticing that it > still compiles, and the objc-lang.c part hasn't been tested at all. > They're all trivial changes, so that amount of testing seems to me to > be sufficient. > > This patch seems obvious to me; if nobody complains, I'll commit it in > a day or two. I think its safe for today. Andrew