From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15334 invoked by alias); 21 Sep 2017 10:25:22 -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 15284 invoked by uid 89); 21 Sep 2017 10:25:22 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy= 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 ESMTP; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 10:25:21 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0369781E0A; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 10:25:20 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 0369781E0A Authentication-Results: ext-mx01.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx01.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=palves@redhat.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn04.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.4]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ED705C542; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 10:25:18 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [RFA 01/67] Add add_cmd function overloads To: "Metzger, Markus T" , Tom Tromey , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" References: <20170921051023.19023-1-tom@tromey.com> <20170921051023.19023-2-tom@tromey.com> From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <43189f99-2c28-a21e-6e05-aac9c7bfc653@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 10:25:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2017-09/txt/msg00615.txt.bz2 On 09/21/2017 08:02 AM, Metzger, Markus T wrote: >> +void >> +set_cmd_cfunc (struct cmd_list_element *cmd, cmd_const_cfunc_ftype *cfunc) >> +{ >> + if (cfunc == NULL) >> + cmd->func = NULL; >> + else >> + cmd->func = do_const_cfunc; >> + cmd->function.const_cfunc = cfunc; /* Ok. */ >> +} > > We shouldn't really have the NULL case, anymore. It is still possible but I don't expect it to be used. Should we assert CFUNC != NULL? If that's possible, then it'd be nice to add ATTRIBUTE_NONNULL on the declaration too. > > Should we also set CMD->FUNCTION.CFUNC to NULL? I think not, because it's a union. Thanks, Pedro Alves