From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10560 invoked by alias); 27 Jun 2014 10:54:14 -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 10550 invoked by uid 89); 27 Jun 2014 10:54:14 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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 (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 27 Jun 2014 10:54:13 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s5RAsCoM023336 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 27 Jun 2014 06:54:12 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s5RAsAW0031891; Fri, 27 Jun 2014 06:54:11 -0400 Message-ID: <53AD4D51.3030302@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 10:54:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Kettenis , gbenson@redhat.com CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Refactor shared code in {i386,amd64}-linux-nat.c References: <1403860209-475-1-git-send-email-gbenson@redhat.com> <201406270928.s5R9SZPG020219@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <53AD49F1.70709@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <53AD49F1.70709@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-06/txt/msg00933.txt.bz2 On 06/27/2014 11:39 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: > The resulting #ifdefery quite reasonable, IMNSHO -- it'd be bad if there > were lots of different combinations of symbols we'd have to #ifdef on, > but there's really only a few #ifdef __x86_64__. So if it's > spaghetti, it's still dry, raw, straight and neatly lined up > in the package. :-) Ah, I found one bit where there's more #ifdefery than necessary. So the spaghetti did catch some moisture. :-) Gary, please compare your resulting x86_linux_read_description with gdbserver's x86_linux_read_description. Notice how it has fewer #ifdef blocks. Could you rework your version of the function in that direction please? Thanks, -- Pedro Alves