From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29376 invoked by alias); 5 Aug 2013 20:12:41 -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 29349 invoked by uid 89); 5 Aug 2013 20:12:40 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RDNS_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.1 Received: from Unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Mon, 05 Aug 2013 20:12:40 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r75KCWEP019680 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 5 Aug 2013 16:12:32 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn-113-128.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.128]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r75KCV5O026373 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 5 Aug 2013 16:12:32 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Mark Kettenis Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] move gdbarch object from objfile to per-BFD References: <1375725385-11178-1-git-send-email-tromey@redhat.com> <201308051811.r75IBJGq013284@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <877gg07xz4.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <201308051922.r75JMD4p020143@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2013 20:12:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <201308051922.r75JMD4p020143@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> (Mark Kettenis's message of "Mon, 5 Aug 2013 21:22:13 +0200 (CEST)") Message-ID: <8738qn99sg.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2013-08/txt/msg00161.txt.bz2 >> I can add it. The reason I did not is that, for whatever reason, >> objfiles have not historically used accessors. So, I preserved the >> status quo in this respect. Mark> Merely a suggestion. If you considered it and decided against it Mark> that's fine with me. I'm not sure why, but even though the patch changed get_objfile_arch, I failed to think of that as an accessor. Weird; but I suppose since it doesn't follow the usual gdb macro style. Anyway, I'll shortly send an updated patch that uses get_objfile_arch at all the spots that read the field. I left the writers alone, as there aren't many and we shouldn't encourage more. Tom