From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19620 invoked by alias); 14 Feb 2013 18:24:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 19564 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Feb 2013 18:24:16 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_SPAMHAUS_DROP,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 18:24:10 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r1EIO9QY025271 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 13:24:09 -0500 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r1EIO8FD012103 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 14 Feb 2013 13:24:08 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [COMMIT PATCH 2/2] Move savestring to common/common-utils.c, make gdbserver use it. References: <20130214171404.2223.83713.stgit@brno.lan> <20130214171411.2223.32326.stgit@brno.lan> <87r4kiixbe.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <511D2805.9050606@redhat.com> <87mwv6ix72.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <511D2980.10703@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 18:24:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <511D2980.10703@redhat.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Thu, 14 Feb 2013 18:14:24 +0000") Message-ID: <87ehgiiwjb.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2.92 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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 X-SW-Source: 2013-02/txt/msg00368.txt.bz2 Pedro> Yeah... It'd be an easier sell if libiberty wasn't such a Pedro> kitchen sink. I know that parts of libiberty would be problematic Pedro> for the Windows CE (I know, it's rotten by now), not sure about Pedro> other ports. I suppose my main concern here is that the gdb/gdbserver unification project will end up needing to reimplement chunks of libiberty. But that would be a bad result, since libiberty already exists. I don't really care so much about this particular function. It is small, it doesn't really matter. The xstrndup name is better (IMO), but unimportantly so. Tom