From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30704 invoked by alias); 14 May 2013 18:01:30 -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 30685 invoked by uid 89); 14 May 2013 18:01:30 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-6.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Tue, 14 May 2013 18:01:29 +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 r4EI1R8o012479 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 14 May 2013 14:01:27 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn-113-133.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.133]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r4EI1QeK011598 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 14 May 2013 14:01:26 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Doug Evans Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] buildsym.c cleanup References: Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 18:01:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Doug Evans's message of "Tue, 14 May 2013 09:03:35 -0700") Message-ID: <87ehd95tl6.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: 2013-05/txt/msg00477.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Doug" == Doug Evans writes: Doug> Regression tested on amd64-linux, and a second time with -gstabs. Doug> I didn't check coff though, however the change is mechanical. Doug> Can someone test this on coff, or is this ok to check in now? I think the subfile_stack and macro-related bits are ok. I have no idea about the COFF change. It isn't clear to me whether coffread and stabsread expect to share the same globals or not. Doug> [I think there's more that can be done here, Doug> but I think this can go in now.] Yeah, there is really no good reason for this module to have any globals at all. Unfortunately, untangling it all always seemed to be a pain. Tom