From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id GAhzKxIbKWGQXwAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 27 Aug 2021 13:04:18 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id AEEE61EE1B; Fri, 27 Aug 2021 13:04:18 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.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 F201C1EDEE for ; Fri, 27 Aug 2021 13:04:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6210C385801E for ; Fri, 27 Aug 2021 17:04:17 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 6210C385801E DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1630083857; bh=VZ4mWwzLKcabEeUL/NBtxCkuZHQhbCs7fDdbQun55Ks=; h=Subject:To:References:Date:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=jQG3HIYG4VS7rAK6S1CH73xaU34H3+8iPbATn5wYkPC8Q2xPCylYBzw5gj6IatUsz Pz6gLMMh2f4ysKtK0NBGLNFYi4170kHjPYGl1OZvcOyfoSbKUNRdFgStFUaZZUh4Q+ 1Pk5d9EwuOnRm6qihNRaPMqhjDN4KUFOIrGejBxI= Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (smtp.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.11]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2829385783E for ; Fri, 27 Aug 2021 17:03:49 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org B2829385783E 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 17RH3iCT001634 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 27 Aug 2021 13:03:48 -0400 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp.polymtl.ca 17RH3iCT001634 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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 187291EDEE; Fri, 27 Aug 2021 13:03:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH][gdb/testsuite] Support .debug_aranges in dwarf assembly To: Tom Tromey References: <20210826115625.GA22715@delia> <87eeafovsa.fsf@tromey.com> <40b7d95e-cc02-38c7-5406-0fc83a2a1b28@polymtl.ca> <87tujaoofr.fsf@tromey.com> Message-ID: <5100b9c9-0a69-d392-1d45-9affe992acff@polymtl.ca> Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2021 13:03:43 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87tujaoofr.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 Fri, 27 Aug 2021 17:03:44 +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 Cc: Tom de Vries via Gdb-patches Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" On 2021-08-27 12:14 p.m., Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Simon" == Simon Marchi writes: > > Simon> Could we consistently use the > Simon> "options" pattern, such as the one used by aranges and cu? > > Yeah, that would be fine by me. > >>> This is nested in 'aranges', but that's weird style in Tcl. >>> It redefines the proc every time 'aranges' is invoked. >>> I think it's better to just namespace scope this. > > Simon> But doing it this way makes it so that you can only invoke arange when > Simon> you are in aranges' body, isn't that useful? I guess the downside to > Simon> redefining the proc everytime is performance, but that's really not a > Simon> concern here (it runs quickly enough). > > To do that, it also have to delete the 'arange' proc after evaluating > the body. I suppose that would be alright by me. Really? This technique is used in proc rnglists, and that doesn't seem to cause a problem. Simon