From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5765 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2014 17:50:34 -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 5671 invoked by uid 89); 16 Jan 2014 17:50:33 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.8 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; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 17:50:32 +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 s0GHoUcU030649 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 12:50:31 -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 s0GHoS0O001944; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 12:50:30 -0500 Message-ID: <52D81BE3.3080501@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 17:50:00 -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 12/32] Add target_ops argument to to_thread_name References: <1389640367-5571-1-git-send-email-tromey@redhat.com> <1389640367-5571-13-git-send-email-tromey@redhat.com> <52D53599.4040503@redhat.com> <87fvopry6x.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <87fvopry6x.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-01/txt/msg00631.txt.bz2 On 01/15/2014 04:45 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: > Pedro> The patch is fine with me as is, but I'll note that I don't > Pedro> think there's any need for exec_set_find_memory_regions > Pedro> nowadays. Seems to me that exec_ops.to_find_memory_regions could > Pedro> always be set to objfile_find_memory_regions unconditionally. > > Good point. > > Here is a patch I've added to my branch to fix this up. > It's cleaner and also more obviously correct in the multi-target case. Thanks. Looks good to me. -- Pedro Alves