From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28111 invoked by alias); 24 Oct 2014 12:35:28 -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 28098 invoked by uid 89); 24 Oct 2014 12:35:27 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.7 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 (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 12:35:27 +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 s9OCZN0f020271 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 24 Oct 2014 08:35:24 -0400 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 s9OCZLK7016178; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 08:35:22 -0400 Message-ID: <544A4789.6020500@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 12:35:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Breazeal, Don" , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/16 v2] Refactor follow-fork message printing References: <1407434395-19089-1-git-send-email-donb@codesourcery.com> <1408580964-27916-3-git-send-email-donb@codesourcery.com> <5425C3E4.3060305@redhat.com> <5425C92B.1010101@codesourcery.com> <543E9C0F.9030701@redhat.com> <544841F0.7000604@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <544841F0.7000604@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-10/txt/msg00638.txt.bz2 On 10/23/2014 12:46 AM, Breazeal, Don wrote: > On 10/15/2014 9:08 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: >> > On 09/26/2014 09:14 PM, Breazeal, Don wrote: >>> >> On 9/26/2014 12:52 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: >>>> >>> On 08/21/2014 01:29 AM, Don Breazeal wrote: >>>>> >>>> This patch refactors the code that prints messages related to follow-fork > ---snip--- > >> > Sorry, I still don't think you're new patch (sent as follow up) is >> > an improvement... Having to explain the "Hardcoded 1's" in a >> > comment is a red sign to me. :-/ > Fair enough. > >> > >> > Could you do a patch that just adds the missing output, and fixes >> > fork/vfork without moving the printing code to a separate function? >> > For the fork vs vfork issue, doing ' is_vfork ? "vfork" : "fork" ' is >> > fine. > Thanks for clarifying the i18n issues for me. The revised patch is > included below, with an updated commit message as well. Is this version OK? Yes, thanks! Pedro Alves