From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4774 invoked by alias); 1 Jul 2013 18:06:03 -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 4764 invoked by uid 89); 1 Jul 2013 18:06:03 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-6.0 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; Mon, 01 Jul 2013 18:06:02 +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 r61I616W015354 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 14:06:01 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn-113-102.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.102]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r61I5xXa007468 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 1 Jul 2013 14:06:00 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/16] move some statics from remote_read_qxfer into struct remote_state References: <1372441229-305-1-git-send-email-tromey@redhat.com> <1372441229-305-12-git-send-email-tromey@redhat.com> <51D1A922.9090707@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 18:06:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <51D1A922.9090707@redhat.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Mon, 01 Jul 2013 17:06:58 +0100") Message-ID: <87vc4ugnp4.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: 2013-07/txt/msg00055.txt.bz2 >> This moves a few static variables out of remote_read_qxfer and into >> remote_state. It is unclear to me if this data can ever be required >> to be kept around across a potential target switch, but it is >> definitely safe to move it into the remote state object. Pedro> Hmm, are we still unclear about it? It seems to me that if we Pedro> dropped the data, we'd always be able to re-fetch it, though obviously Pedro> we'd lose on the optimization. It definitely seems to me that Pedro> putting it in the remote state object is the correct choice. Pedro> Maybe you're seeing something I'm not though. Nope, I just neglected to update the note. I've dropped everything after the first sentence. Tom