From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E286384A028 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 15:54:18 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 6E286384A028 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=simark.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=simark@simark.ca Received: from [10.0.0.11] (unknown [192.222.164.54]) (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 F07F31E581; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 11:54:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/28] Refactor delete_program_space as a destructor To: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20200414175434.8047-1-palves@redhat.com> <20200414175434.8047-4-palves@redhat.com> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: <499a4344-14f9-d959-c0c7-af2d8a568606@simark.ca> Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 11:54:17 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200414175434.8047-4-palves@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: fr Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 15:54:19 -0000 On 2020-04-14 1:54 p.m., Pedro Alves via Gdb-patches wrote: > +/* Adds a new empty program space to the program space list, and binds > + it to ASPACE. Returns the pointer to the new object. */ You could take the opportunity to update this comment. At least, the "Return the pointer" part is not really relevant for a constructor. Otherwise, this LGTM. Simon