From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 53327 invoked by alias); 19 May 2015 22:16:43 -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 53315 invoked by uid 89); 19 May 2015 22:16:43 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no 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; Tue, 19 May 2015 22:16:42 +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 t4JMGeJN018966 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 19 May 2015 18:16:40 -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 t4JMGc1F032599; Tue, 19 May 2015 18:16:38 -0400 Message-ID: <555BB645.4010806@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 22:16:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Keith Seitz , Doug Evans CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/9] Explicit locations: introduce new struct event_location-based API References: <20150507180523.19629.77846.stgit@valrhona.uglyboxes.com> <20150507180549.19629.87819.stgit@valrhona.uglyboxes.com> <555B9FE1.7050603@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <555B9FE1.7050603@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-05/txt/msg00509.txt.bz2 On 05/19/2015 09:41 PM, Keith Seitz wrote: >> Note to self: Do we need both non-const and const versions? >> [e.g., treat cached value as mutable in c++ sense?] > > Yeah, if we could do something like that in C, that would negate the > need for both versions. As it is, this seemed the easiest (and not > an uncommon) way to deal with this. If you have another option, I'm all > eyes. You can cast away const for that. See ada_decode_symbol for an example of exactly that. "const" in C does not mean that the object is set to stone in read-only storage. Thanks, Pedro Alves