From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19618 invoked by alias); 11 Mar 2013 18:30:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 19598 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Mar 2013 18:30:47 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.6 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; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 18:30:35 +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 r2BIUPbF025481 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 14:30:34 -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 r2BIU2pf008634 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 11 Mar 2013 14:30:07 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Keith Seitz Cc: Pedro Alves , "gdb-patches\@sourceware.org ml" Subject: Re: [RFA] "constify" parse_exp_1 References: <51392C56.7040302@redhat.com> <51392F3F.5090102@redhat.com> <51393886.9030602@redhat.com> <87obeuc58e.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <513E0B58.4090800@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 18:30:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <513E0B58.4090800@redhat.com> (Keith Seitz's message of "Mon, 11 Mar 2013 09:50:32 -0700") Message-ID: <87y5dtn61h.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 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: 2013-03/txt/msg00482.txt.bz2 Keith> Ok, that strdup, while not necessary, is not yet ready to be removed Keith> until parse_and_eval is const, which I did not do. I thought that Keith> might be a much more involved patch, and planned to do that Keith> separately. Ok, that's good enough for me. Keith> That's all of them AFAICT. Anything further you want wrt to analyzing Keith> callers that I missed? Nope. Tom