From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32412 invoked by alias); 15 Jul 2013 15:34:31 -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 32395 invoked by uid 89); 15 Jul 2013 15:34:30 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RDNS_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from Unknown (HELO e06smtp12.uk.ibm.com) (195.75.94.108) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 15:34:29 +0000 Received: from /spool/local by e06smtp12.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 16:28:58 +0100 Received: from d06dlp02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.20.14) by e06smtp12.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.142) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 16:28:57 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay13.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.198]) by d06dlp02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E42902190023 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 16:38:17 +0100 (BST) Received: from d06av10.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av10.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.251]) by b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id r6FFY7GQ50266250 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 15:34:07 GMT Received: from d06av10.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d06av10.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id r6FFYIYG019951 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 09:34:18 -0600 Received: from br87z6lw.de.ibm.com (dyn-9-152-212-143.boeblingen.de.ibm.com [9.152.212.143]) by d06av10.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id r6FFYH51019925; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 09:34:18 -0600 From: Andreas Arnez To: lgustavo@codesourcery.com Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com Subject: Re: [ping 2] [RFA][PATCH v4 0/5] Add TDB regset support References: <87zju3intq.fsf@br87z6lw.de.ibm.com> <87d2qt83au.fsf@br87z6lw.de.ibm.com> <874nbwtdgk.fsf_-_@br87z6lw.de.ibm.com> <51E3F8B3.10109@codesourcery.com> Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 15:34:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <51E3F8B3.10109@codesourcery.com> (Luis Machado's message of "Mon, 15 Jul 2013 10:27:15 -0300") Message-ID: <87zjtnsupy.fsf@br87z6lw.de.ibm.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-TM-AS-MML: No X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 13071515-8372-0000-0000-00000694FF0E X-SW-Source: 2013-07/txt/msg00349.txt.bz2 Luis Machado writes: > I didn't go through your last update of the patch, but FTR i still > think we should make the core file sections static and store them in > some form of array instead of hardcoding their contents in numerous > function calls. In the PowerPC case the patch includes four call-back invocations, all contained in a 20-line iterator function. I'd hardly call that "numerous function calls". And I consider it an improvement over the original code, which had six hard-coded static array initializers with various copy-/pasted lines, plus the logic for selecting the correct array. The improvement is even more drastic for S/390. Don't you agree? Or do you see even more potential for improvement?