From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19877 invoked by alias); 11 Sep 2012 16:50:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 19859 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Sep 2012 16:50:14 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,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; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 16:49:59 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q8BGnuP8002011 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 11 Sep 2012 12:49:56 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q8BGntH6014305 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 11 Sep 2012 12:49:55 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: dje@google.com Cc: Yao Qi , Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] new gdb_queue.h in common/. References: <1345775139-13576-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <1345775139-13576-2-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <20535.52070.49473.442620@ruffy2.mtv.corp.google.com> <503DE3E0.5070803@codesourcery.com> <20550.27760.260327.470212@ruffy2.mtv.corp.google.com> Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 16:50:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20550.27760.260327.470212@ruffy2.mtv.corp.google.com> (dje@google.com's message of "Tue, 4 Sep 2012 14:02:40 -0700") Message-ID: <87ipbka4i4.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (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: 2012-09/txt/msg00162.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Doug" == Douglas Evans writes: Doug> Yeah, OTOH this is how "extended" versions of API functions come into being. Doug> They're a wart in the API so I like to avoid them. Doug> E.g. consider htab_create_alloc vs htab_create_alloc_ex in the hashtab API. Doug> Some might not think this is a wart, alas I do, so this is one situation Doug> where I don't like to lazily add stuff (when I'm aware of it at Doug> the time ... :-)). Doug> OTOOH, since we're lazily adding the object version of the API anyway, Doug> I don't feel too strongly about it here. I think the difference is that if the code is all in gdb, then a change can also easily update all uses. This isn't true for hashtab. Tom