From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17064 invoked by alias); 4 Jun 2014 17:58:23 -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 17051 invoked by uid 89); 4 Jun 2014 17:58:23 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 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; Wed, 04 Jun 2014 17:58:22 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s54HwJ3Q027044 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 4 Jun 2014 13:58:20 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s54HwI0j017768; Wed, 4 Jun 2014 13:58:19 -0400 Message-ID: <538F5E3A.8010507@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 17:58:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: gdb-7.8 branching status (2014-06-04) References: <20140604171843.GX30686@adacore.com> <538F58DE.7030204@redhat.com> <20140604174607.GV4289@adacore.com> <538F5D68.9060100@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <538F5D68.9060100@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-06/txt/msg00197.txt.bz2 On 06/04/2014 06:54 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: > On 06/04/2014 06:46 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote: >> >> I'm trying to see if I should define it for LynxOS or not, but >> then we have the same issue with SPU, I think. > > The function is a boolean, so assuming false if the > hook is NULL is fine: > > return (z_type >= '0' && z_type <= '4' > + && the_target->supports_z_point_type != NULL > && the_target->supports_z_point_type (z_type)); > To clarify, neither LynxOS nor SPU install insert_point nor remove_point hooks either, so the only thing the method could do if we installed it would be return false. But since insert_point and remove_point can be NULL, it feels natural to allow supports_z_point_type to be NULL too. -- Pedro Alves