From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32745 invoked by alias); 21 May 2018 15:52:44 -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 32616 invoked by uid 89); 21 May 2018 15:52:43 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=H*M:4961 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.73) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 21 May 2018 15:52:42 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0116B401EF01; Mon, 21 May 2018 15:52:41 +0000 (UTC) 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 54DF610EE6D5; Mon, 21 May 2018 15:52:40 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/2] gdb: Split func_command into two parts. To: Andrew Burgess , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <3378e45e-2da2-6eea-814a-86e6e565bf7a@redhat.com> <20180521152701.GT3797@embecosm.com> From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 16:06:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180521152701.GT3797@embecosm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2018-05/txt/msg00486.txt.bz2 On 05/21/2018 04:27 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote: > As the structure was so small, and only used in that one function, I > moved the structure into the function entirely (and added an updated > comment to both the structure, and the function). I had a little look > through GDB and there are a few other cases of structures declared > within a function, so hopefully this is OK. Let me know if you'd > rather see this moved back out again. This is fine with me as is. Feel free to push it in immediately to get it out of the way. Thanks, Pedro Alves