From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21998 invoked by alias); 23 Oct 2003 01:29:01 -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 21981 invoked from network); 23 Oct 2003 01:29:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (207.219.125.105) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 23 Oct 2003 01:29:00 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F7D32B89; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 21:28:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3F972ED9.7080706@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 01:29:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030820 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jim Blandy Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: osabi: correct test for compatible handlers References: <3F96D128.5040904@redhat.com> <3F970598.9020908@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00674.txt.bz2 > But I think it's easier to see what the *resulting code* does with the > function in place. We should put the readability of the resultant > code above readability of the change. You say, "A can use a handler > for B if A can run code for B", and then you can make a separate check > to see whether can_run_code_for is correct. I am thinking of the readability of the final code and putting that first. Please don't suggest otherwize. Andrew