From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id BoEZKZTJAWHuKQAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 17:18:12 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id A05D41EDFB; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 17:18:12 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RDNS_DYNAMIC,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (ip-8-43-85-97.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F26311E813 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 17:18:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62B77388F035 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 21:18:11 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 62B77388F035 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1627507091; bh=RjUMcYBqvzwch7ebdfOAk4u24O4aANCQtRcsWK/aY6U=; h=Subject:To:References:Date:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To: From; b=ptvcTaoX4+j57k4/i34y4KQwOBu/Qex9JogOqJgyOvtiAkEEOYUco0nbsnqVxaBpG vkITNYIlw9ERJp9bryoxwBlemv2IRTgaACYPqRlaGByIpVGcF8hGZKQbdpLrESVbAE cq73yt/9w0GykONATx2dXzm4Fl9lPf1HJO5bk12A= Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (smtp.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.11]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0AF70388E83D for ; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 21:17:48 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 0AF70388E83D Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.polymtl.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 16SLHhgs004879 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 28 Jul 2021 17:17:48 -0400 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp.polymtl.ca 16SLHhgs004879 Received: from [10.0.0.11] (192-222-157-6.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.157.6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6487F1E813; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 17:17:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/16] gdb: remove cmd_list_element::function::sfunc To: Tom Tromey , Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches References: <20210714045520.1623120-1-simon.marchi@polymtl.ca> <20210714045520.1623120-14-simon.marchi@polymtl.ca> <871r7idzl7.fsf@tromey.com> Message-ID: <3fd5929e-1818-fc57-425b-2b0065f3f252@polymtl.ca> Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2021 17:17:43 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <871r7idzl7.fsf@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Poly-FromMTA: (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) at Wed, 28 Jul 2021 21:17:43 +0000 X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Simon Marchi Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" On 2021-07-28 3:10 p.m., Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Simon" == Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches writes: > > Simon> I don't understand what the sfunc function type in > Simon> cmd_list_element::function is for. > > Thanks for cleaning this stuff up. > My feeling is that, probably, some of this was from a planned transition > that was never completed. It's hard to know for sure though. That's what I thought as well. > Simon> int > Simon> cli_user_command_p (struct cmd_list_element *cmd) > Simon> { > Simon> - return (cmd->theclass == class_user > Simon> - && (cmd->func == do_simple_func || cmd->func == do_sfunc)); > Simon> + return cmd->theclass == class_user && cmd->func == do_simple_func; > > This seems to change the semantics of this function, but I wonder if it > matters at all. (Ideally, though, cli_user_command_p would simply go > away.) I'm not 100% sure either, this is all very confusing. The ways to create commands with class_user I know of are: - do_define_command - Python and Guile, if the user passes gdb.COMMAND_USER as the class. do_define_command passes the dummy user_defined_command function as the command's function, which makes it have a "simple func". Python and Guile do not. So in the end that check will filter out Python and Guile commands, which I think is what we want to do. Simon