From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25056 invoked by alias); 7 Apr 2010 16:56:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 25042 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Apr 2010 16:56:16 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,SARE_MSGID_LONG45,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (216.239.44.51) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 16:56:11 +0000 Received: from hpaq14.eem.corp.google.com (hpaq14.eem.corp.google.com [10.3.21.14]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o37Gu8TM020449 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 09:56:08 -0700 Received: from pwi9 (pwi9.prod.google.com [10.241.219.9]) by hpaq14.eem.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o37Gte2B013910 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 18:56:07 +0200 Received: by pwi9 with SMTP id 9so1249006pwi.13 for ; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 09:56:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.141.124.12 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 09:56:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20100407053308.GH19194@adacore.com> References: <20100406194845.F12F784397@ruffy.mtv.corp.google.com> <20100407053308.GH19194@adacore.com> Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 16:56:00 -0000 Received: by 10.140.56.16 with SMTP id e16mr7598823rva.143.1270659366747; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 09:56:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [patch] Make source_file_name const char *. From: Doug Evans To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-System-Of-Record: true 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: 2010-04/txt/msg00136.txt.bz2 On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 10:33 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote: >> I will check this patch in in a few days if there are no objections. >> It just adds const to source_file_name. > > I'd say go ahead. I think your patch is an improvement, and at worst, > it's so easy to revert that it's not worth the pain of waiting > for potential objections (IMO). "works for me" Thanks, checked in.