From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 81711 invoked by alias); 25 Jul 2017 19:19:35 -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 81489 invoked by uid 89); 25 Jul 2017 19:19:33 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,GIT_PATCH_2,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=diversion, Pacific, iow, H*F:D*oracle.com X-HELO: userp1040.oracle.com Received: from userp1040.oracle.com (HELO userp1040.oracle.com) (156.151.31.81) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 19:19:32 +0000 Received: from userv0022.oracle.com (userv0022.oracle.com [156.151.31.74]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id v6PJJTB3011610 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 25 Jul 2017 19:19:29 GMT Received: from userv0121.oracle.com (userv0121.oracle.com [156.151.31.72]) by userv0022.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v6PJJTLa000488 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 25 Jul 2017 19:19:29 GMT Received: from abhmp0008.oracle.com (abhmp0008.oracle.com [141.146.116.14]) by userv0121.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v6PJJSRj010139; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 19:19:29 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <46b97822-c3a8-4ed7-ab1c-fa0a932d4007@default> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 19:19:00 -0000 From: Weimin Pan To: Cc: , Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] gdb: ADI support Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline X-SW-Source: 2017-07/txt/msg00398.txt.bz2 ----- Original Message ----- > From: qiyaoltc@gmail.com > To: jose.marchesi@oracle.com > Cc: weimin.pan@oracle.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org > Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 9:44:55 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] gdb: ADI support > > jose.marchesi@oracle.com (Jose E. Marchesi) writes: > > > General question: what's wrong with using a simple linked list of > > structs if that is the developer's preference, and/or it follows the > > current style of the surrounding code? (Not saying it is in this case, > > that's up to Weimin to say.) > > It makes the code a little bit unnecessarily complicated, IOW, std::list > or std::forward_list can make it simpler. My preference is to use > standard c++ data structure rather than re-inventing it again. Obviously I missed your comment of using std::list but it's not clear to me= why you think a simple linked list can be a little bit unnecessarily complicate= d. Given the fact that we need to backport this new feature to older gdb's, e.= g. dev-toolset6, one question is do we need to resort to the linked list solut= ion if the std list implementation is not available in older gdb versions? As o= f now, we have one diversion already - uiout->text ("\n") VS ui_out_text (uiout, = "\n").