From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29290 invoked by alias); 14 Jan 2014 19:45:20 -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 29269 invoked by uid 89); 14 Jan 2014 19:45:19 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 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; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 19:45:18 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s0EJjG2m019660 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 14:45:16 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s0EJjEWx016746; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 14:45:14 -0500 Message-ID: <52D593CA.5020704@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 19:45:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Tromey CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC 30/32] convert to_search_memory References: <1389640367-5571-1-git-send-email-tromey@redhat.com> <1389640367-5571-31-git-send-email-tromey@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <1389640367-5571-31-git-send-email-tromey@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-01/txt/msg00472.txt.bz2 Looks good. On 01/13/2014 07:12 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: > @@ -2789,7 +2778,7 @@ find_default_run_target (char *do_mesg) > for (t = target_structs; t < target_structs + target_struct_size; > ++t) > { > - if ((*t)->to_can_run && target_can_run (*t)) > + if ((*t)->to_can_run != delegate_can_run && target_can_run (*t)) OOC, I'm wondering how you envision translating checks like this into a C++ world? > { > runable = *t; > ++count; -- Pedro Alves