From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 74132 invoked by alias); 29 Oct 2018 20:11:00 -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 74098 invoked by uid 89); 29 Oct 2018 20:10:59 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=UD:offset-type.h, offsettypeh, offset-type.h, relational 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; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 20:10:58 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E62783082E10; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 20:10:56 +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 D7E9F600C8; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 20:10:52 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix thinko on common/offset-type.h (compare 'lhs' against 'rhs') To: Simon Marchi , Sergio Durigan Junior References: <20181025211008.12164-1-sergiodj@redhat.com> <87o9bgeko0.fsf@redhat.com> <14654b71e08e56bd7c26e7a2f21f9941@polymtl.ca> Cc: Simon Marchi , GDB Patches From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 20:11:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <14654b71e08e56bd7c26e7a2f21f9941@polymtl.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SW-Source: 2018-10/txt/msg00700.txt.bz2 On 10/26/2018 07:23 PM, Simon Marchi wrote: > On 2018-10-26 12:29, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: >>> Therefore, I think we could just remove the relational operator definitions >>> entirely. >> >> OK, I'll go with that, then.  I'll submit a patch for that soon (have >> some errands to run right now). > > We just need confirmation from Pedro that this is ok and we're not missing anything important here. I don't recall why I added that. Probably just assumed blindly that it was needed. I think the functions aren't called because they are templates, and thus the built-in (non-template) versions take preference. If you make them non-templates, then they should be called. But, the built-ins are fine, so yeah, we can just remove the custom definitions. Thanks, Pedro Alves