From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8959 invoked by alias); 13 Aug 2014 01:54:58 -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 4020 invoked by uid 89); 13 Aug 2014 01:53:55 -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 autolearn=ham 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, 13 Aug 2014 01:53:52 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.93]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1XHNl6-0004tc-3p from Yao_Qi@mentor.com ; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 18:53:48 -0700 Received: from SVR-ORW-FEM-04.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.97.41]) by svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 12 Aug 2014 18:53:48 -0700 Received: from qiyao.dyndns.org (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-fem-04.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.97.41) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.247.3; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 18:53:47 -0700 Message-ID: <53EAC446.5060409@codesourcery.com> Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 01:54:00 -0000 From: Yao Qi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Evans , Jan Kratochvil CC: gdb-patches Subject: Re: [patch+7.8?] Fix --with-babeltrace with gcc-4.9.1 References: <20140804202907.GA2608@host2.jankratochvil.net> <53E17E14.8070104@codesourcery.com> <20140812192204.GA13299@host2.jankratochvil.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-08/txt/msg00207.txt.bz2 On 08/13/2014 04:32 AM, Doug Evans wrote: > This seems like an excessive amount of code just to test whether a > library exists. > Do we really need all of it? IMO, it's better to keep them. When I use babeltrace in GDB, I find the babeltrace APIs are not stable, so I put more code in the configure test, to cover GDB usages. > E.g., can we just delete "pos" and the function call that initializes it? > > struct bt_iter_pos *pos = bt_iter_get_pos (bt_ctf_get_iter (NULL)); > > Or, if for some reason we need to test whether bf_ctf_get_iter exists, > can we just > call it and discard the result? [And similarly for the rest of the code.] > None of this code gets run anyways. As I said above, bt_iter_get_pos and bf_ctf_get_iter are here to test they still exist in the babeltrace library. They are in 1.1.0, but I am worried that they may be changed or renamed in the future. -- Yao (齐尧)