From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28739 invoked by alias); 22 Mar 2009 16:43:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 28731 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Mar 2009 16:43:45 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from ti-out-0910.google.com (HELO ti-out-0910.google.com) (209.85.142.191) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 22 Mar 2009 16:43:39 +0000 Received: by ti-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id a1so1091222tib.12 for ; Sun, 22 Mar 2009 09:43:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.110.3.15 with SMTP id 15mr9484331tic.43.1237740216666; Sun, 22 Mar 2009 09:43:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <200903211618.n2LGIwBO018366@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <200903221530.52997.pedro@codesourcery.com> Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 16:47:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFA] Submit process record and replay fourth time, 7/8 From: Hui Zhu To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Mark Kettenis , marc.khouzam@ericsson.com, msnyder@vmware.com, bauerman@br.ibm.com, eliz@gnu.org, paawan1982@yahoo.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2009-03/txt/msg00457.txt.bz2 Hi Pedro, On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 23:59, Hui Zhu wrote: > Hi Pedro, > > On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 23:30, Pedro Alves wrote: >> >> The way this is written looks like there's a bunch >> of unneeded duplication. >> >> =A0+#define I386_LINUX_RECORD_SIZE__old_kernel_stat =A0 =A0 =A0 =A032 >> >> =A0+ =A0/* Initialize the i386_linux_record_tdep. =A0*/ >> =A0+ =A0i386_linux_record_tdep.size__old_kernel_stat =3D >> =A0+ =A0 =A0I386_LINUX_RECORD_SIZE__old_kernel_stat; >> >> Are the I386_LINUX_RECORD_SIZE__XXXXX defines used for >> anything else other than initializing the corresponding >> i386_linux_record_tdep.size_XXXXX field? =A0If not, why not >> drop the defines and just write >> >> =A0i386_linux_record_tdep.size__old_kernel_stat =3D 32; > > Yes, you are right. =A0I will do it. About this part, I think it again. I think keep it to macro is better. Because all of values can't be change. Set them to variable just to make record linux code more friendly to other arch. So I think make it to macro is more clear. Thanks, Hui