From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5151 invoked by alias); 9 Oct 2013 23:51:46 -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 5139 invoked by uid 89); 9 Oct 2013 23:51:45 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=1.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,GARBLED_BODY autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 09 Oct 2013 23:51:45 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-exc-10.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.58]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1VU3XY-0005Zt-Fb from Yao_Qi@mentor.com ; Wed, 09 Oct 2013 16:51:40 -0700 Received: from SVR-ORW-FEM-05.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.97.43]) by SVR-ORW-EXC-10.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 9 Oct 2013 16:51:40 -0700 Received: from qiyao.dyndns.org (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-fem-05.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.97.43) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.247.3; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 16:51:37 -0700 Message-ID: <5255EBB3.1050700@codesourcery.com> Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 23:51:00 -0000 From: Yao Qi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130110 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker CC: Doug Evans , Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] New lang-varobj.h References: <1379512482-31773-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <1379512482-31773-6-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <21068.21875.734416.904684@ruffy.mtv.corp.google.com> <20131008045901.GE3092@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20131008045901.GE3092@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-10/txt/msg00324.txt.bz2 On 10/08/2013 12:59 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote: >> >How about move lang-varobj.h into varobj.h? > Not very important in the grand scheme of things, but I tend to agree > with the suggestion. If we had a lang-varobj.c, things might be > different. But for a simple definition of the language-specific ops > directly related to varobj, I'd keep things simple, inside varobj.h. We don't have lang-varobj.c, but we'll have c-varobj.c, jv-varobj.c and ada-varobj.c [done by patch 6/7]. Is it strong enough to justify creating new file lang-varobj.h? -- Yao (齐尧)