From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9361 invoked by alias); 1 Nov 2011 20:38:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 9350 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Nov 2011 20:38:17 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Nov 2011 20:37:57 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pA1Kbu1Q013549 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 1 Nov 2011 16:37:56 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pA1KbuX3003912; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 16:37:56 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pA1Kbt34026681; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 16:37:55 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Matt Rice Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFA: implement ambiguous linespec proposal References: Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 20:38:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Matt Rice's message of "Fri, 28 Oct 2011 13:50:55 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.90 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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: 2011-11/txt/msg00030.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Matt" == Matt Rice writes: Tom> I'd appreciate comments on this patch. Matt> In the following snippet, the initial comment doesn't mention Matt> destroy_linespec_result, and some of the field comments mention Matt> that the caller is responsible for freeing. Matt> destroy_linespec_result seems to fulfill this obligation, Matt> I imagine that the comments just predate destroy_linespec_result, or Matt> there is an OR situation e.g. if the caller wants to save some fields Matt> they are responsible. Anyhow it'd be nice to clarify that in the Matt> comments. Yeah, that's what happened. Thanks for noticing this; I cleaned up the comments on my local branch. Tom