From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25194 invoked by alias); 18 Apr 2012 17:05:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 25174 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Apr 2012 17:05:37 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 17:05:22 +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 q3IH5KTZ010969 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 18 Apr 2012 13:05:21 -0400 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 q3IH5Jkt017866 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 18 Apr 2012 13:05:20 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Siva Chandra Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC - Python scripting] New methods Symtab.global_block and Symtab.static_block (docs included) References: <87vckytg9a.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 18:41:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <87vckytg9a.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> (Tom Tromey's message of "Tue, 17 Apr 2012 11:33:37 -0600") Message-ID: <87ty0hotrk.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.95 (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: 2012-04/txt/msg00597.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Tom" == Tom Tromey writes: Siva> + block = symtab->blockvector->block[GLOBAL_BLOCK]; Siva> + block = symtab->blockvector->block[STATIC_BLOCK]; Tom> These two spots should use the BLOCKVECTOR accessor macro. I forgot that we also have blockvector accessors. So, could you change these to use BLOCKVECTOR_BLOCK as well? Thanks. Tom