From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-117273-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 22639 invoked by alias); 4 Nov 2014 15:23:37 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 22625 invoked by uid 89); 4 Nov 2014 15:23:36 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-HELO: mail-ob0-f178.google.com
Received: from mail-ob0-f178.google.com (HELO mail-ob0-f178.google.com) (209.85.214.178) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 04 Nov 2014 15:23:35 +0000
Received: by mail-ob0-f178.google.com with SMTP id vb8so5928527obc.23        for <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>; Tue, 04 Nov 2014 07:23:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;        d=1e100.net; s=20130820;        h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date         :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;        bh=ISbxNqz95gzh+dDIuKYa9pk3hCnioGgCvV3XNlJ/02s=;        b=NYvh1BxNr+XJQJCeRzG0ChBmgLTifCtyHxnPnnh2MNZQ7KFT5KapXwHRJqy1ut3YAD         NPD2gl6ashw6nOnud20xTd2zHClsN64pJkjnuzo0FJemZu8NrhDAafuNYuT+KNIm1ijp         h0iqn1WrwVwEdjWiuim5r1BhuYtZ6CmF1Ja8jxohMiLHSB+yL/+lJ8VJTdhkLAYsFKiM         qyHH27FsOWsPzdCcTInsWvg18Mx579Q/tEmYAwg0W+AFIc7+XFM2W6XVkd2WP7HgCXlx         w5XEJzVMAMZDGiDEM/DW3D4PYh/0tPi/QhnYigDBBq0j0zhsbI0v0xVibeAoBCxzytQA         WTcA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnOy7S5N0jr74hJuUliq5ICZemITO6g5rkeKl4FDwJqywKHEXb5sCSZgZqC2oVO1C9W/0Kj
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.202.96.10 with SMTP id u10mr41085231oib.28.1415114613478; Tue, 04 Nov 2014 07:23:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.202.197.13 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Nov 2014 07:23:33 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <201411041458.sA4EwuJT001432@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com>
References: <CAGyQ6gzmjJYTYfSmZi9qArdpKVu-vtkP7wG0dNjPPMboyp6fHg@mail.gmail.com>	<201411041458.sA4EwuJT001432@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 15:23:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAGyQ6gyc75jNBa-gS+TNo_3OXBwJ=Z89R1GrNxs1O=jykZfoNA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] Make chained function calls in expressions work
From: Siva Chandra <sivachandra@google.com>
To: Ulrich Weigand <uweigand@de.ibm.com>
Cc: gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2014-11/txt/msg00065.txt.bz2

On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Ulrich Weigand <uweigand@de.ibm.com> wrote:
> Siva Chandra wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 5:38 AM, Ulrich Weigand <uweigand@de.ibm.com> wrote:
>> > Yes, having an additional flag in struct expression would fix the safety
>> > issue.  Moving initialization to evalute_subexp if *pos == 0 would then
>> > no longer be safety issue, but simply enabling use of temporaries in more
>> > cases.
>>
>> Since I have my code already setup in this fashion, I would prefer to
>> go this route unless you see an advantage of going with the solution
>> you suggest below.
>
> Well, I don't think there are any functional advantages as such, but the
> implementation looks a bit cleaner (all the details of temporary handling
> done in infcall.c; fewer interactions between eval.c and infcall.c;
> shorter patch overall).

Shall I go with the thread route then?