From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 37059 invoked by alias); 26 Dec 2018 17:30:56 -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 36516 invoked by uid 89); 26 Dec 2018 17:30:28 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=mechanical, admit, risk X-HELO: simark.ca Received: from simark.ca (HELO simark.ca) (158.69.221.121) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 26 Dec 2018 17:30:25 +0000 Received: from [10.0.0.11] (unknown [192.222.164.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 003821E059; Wed, 26 Dec 2018 12:30:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/12] Remove some ALL_* iteration macros To: Tom Tromey , Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20181125165439.13773-1-tom@tromey.com> <20181223070033.GB8096@adacore.com> <87zhsuprvq.fsf@tromey.com> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: <6e551a8d-6c3a-de70-38f3-82ec286a47aa@simark.ca> Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2018 17:30:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87zhsuprvq.fsf@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2018-12/txt/msg00338.txt.bz2 On 2018-12-24 3:54 p.m., Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Joel" == Joel Brobecker writes: > > Joel> As for the downside, I don't consider re-indentation a downside > Joel> other than it makes review a bit more painful. The two-nested > Joel> loop didn't seem like they were making the code less readable. > Joel> Did you have any other concerns with that? > > Nope. > > Joel> I admit I was scanning the last few patches much faster than the first > Joel> few ones, but they seem fairly mechanical to me, so I think the risk > Joel> is low. > > I think I will have to redo much of the series to account for that > version of gcc that Simon sometimes uses -- the one that requires ranged > for loops to use the "struct" keyword. I probably can't really test > that change but I'll make a best effort at it in order to reduce the > amount of work he has to do. Hehe. Looking back at those patches, it's with gcc 6.3.0. Those are cross-compilers I built with crosstool-ng 1.22: $ ~/x-tools/aarch64-rpi3-linux-gnueabi/bin/aarch64-rpi3-linux-gnueabi-gcc --version aarch64-rpi3-linux-gnueabi-gcc (crosstool-NG crosstool-ng-1.22.0-677-ga3dd55b9) 6.3.0 I see crosstool-ng 1.23 has been released, but it still uses gcc 6.3.0. And it looks like the gcc version used in current Debian stable (codename stretch) is also 6.3.0: https://packages.debian.org/stretch/gcc I'll give a try to this patchset (and take a quick look at the same time). Simon