From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30855 invoked by alias); 27 May 2010 20:37:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 30847 invoked by uid 22791); 27 May 2010 20:37:22 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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; Thu, 27 May 2010 20:37:17 +0000 Received: from int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.17]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o4RKb9q2024634 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 27 May 2010 16:37:09 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o4RKb8x1002008; Thu, 27 May 2010 16:37:08 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (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 o4RKb7KY028799; Thu, 27 May 2010 16:37:08 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 714A63780A5; Thu, 27 May 2010 14:37:07 -0600 (MDT) From: Tom Tromey To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] New qRelocInsn RSP packet, docs and NEWS. References: <201005241435.45703.pedro@codesourcery.com> <201005272109.22413.pedro@codesourcery.com> Reply-To: tromey@redhat.com Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 20:39:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <201005272109.22413.pedro@codesourcery.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Thu, 27 May 2010 21:09:22 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2010-05/txt/msg00661.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: Pedro> +char *unpack_varlen_hex (char *buff, ULONGEST *result); Tom> It seems like this declaration could go in tracepoint.h. Pedro> This function does live in remote.c, but it's defined further Pedro> down, close to its siblings. tracepoint.c is also reusing it Pedro> since not to long ago (since tracing moved to target_ops). Pedro> remote.h would make a bit more sense though one could argue it Pedro> could also live in a shared utils.c-kind of file nowadays. Oops, sorry about the mistake. I misread which file the definition is in. My concern is that duplicate declarations lead to bugs, because they can insulate a module from changes to an API it uses. Ideally, I think that all non-static objects ought to have a single declaration in a single header file, which is included by all users. Exactly where something lives is secondary to me. I do think it is generally better for generic functions to be somewhere like utils.c. The only real failure mode to a bad placement is a bit of code duplication, though, and that isn't as serious a problem, at least not for "leaf" things like this. thanks, Tom