From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31434 invoked by alias); 26 Sep 2017 12:17:20 -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 31077 invoked by uid 89); 26 Sep 2017 12:17:19 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 26 Sep 2017 12:17:14 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9DD24D7121; Tue, 26 Sep 2017 12:17:13 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 9DD24D7121 Authentication-Results: ext-mx09.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx09.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=palves@redhat.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn04.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.4]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1BC46A8E3; Tue, 26 Sep 2017 12:17:12 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [RFA 38/67] Constify some linespec functions To: Tom Tromey References: <20170921051023.19023-1-tom@tromey.com> <20170921051023.19023-39-tom@tromey.com> <3ee0e33a-422c-a0f0-33aa-e8c4aa207407@redhat.com> <87bmm2hxjc.fsf@tromey.com> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 12:17:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87bmm2hxjc.fsf@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2017-09/txt/msg00793.txt.bz2 On 09/23/2017 05:03 AM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: > > Pedro> In several places you followed a pattern like: > >>> static void >>> -foo_command (char *args, int from_tty) >>> +foo_command (char *args_in, int from_tty) > > Pedro> ... and then args_in wasn't used. > > Hmm... normally I think it should be used. > Like in this patch (#38): > > -info_scope_command (char *args, int from_tty) > +info_scope_command (char *args_in, int from_tty) > ... > - char *save_args = args; > + const char *save_args = args_in; > ... > + const char *args = args_in; > I meant, used other than for immediately initializating a const version. > Pedro> I'd be nice to mention in the commit log the reason for this. > Pedro> I assume that it's because we don't have the corresponding > Pedro> constified add_cmd variant? > > In this case I believe the reason is that info_scope_command could not > be constified yet, because add_info isn't constified; but on the other > hand it calls string_to_event_location, which is now constified, and it > didn't seem worthwhile to overload that. > Makes sense, and that's exactly the sort of info I was looking for. > I think all the cases *should* be things like this, but of course there > may be errors. Thanks, Pedro Alves