From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13615 invoked by alias); 3 Feb 2010 18:23:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 13604 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Feb 2010 18:23:40 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_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; Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:23:35 +0000 Received: from int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.18]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o13INYj3026633 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 13:23:34 -0500 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o13INXtt016826; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 13:23:33 -0500 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 o13INWm6025249; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 13:23:33 -0500 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 68709378181; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 11:23:32 -0700 (MST) From: Tom Tromey To: Chris Moller Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Patch for PR 10728 References: <4B689FD2.9070300@redhat.com> <4B68FD51.9090209@redhat.com> Reply-To: Tom Tromey Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:23:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <4B68FD51.9090209@redhat.com> (Chris Moller's message of "Tue, 02 Feb 2010 23:36:33 -0500") 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: 2010-02/txt/msg00083.txt.bz2 Chris> Is there a cleanup for stuff that gets done in Chris> _initialize_cp_valprint()? There may be, but I wouldn't bother with it. It is ok to initialize an obstack and then leave it around forever. Chris> The problem is I don't know which eps are relevant. Does anything Chris> other than C/C++ have the statics problem? Yeah, Java does at least. I'm not sure about other languages, but I assume so. However, Java doesn't call into the code you're modifying, so it shouldn't matter for this patch. >> The formatting is weird here; the first statement doesn't appear to have >> changed, but has gratuitous formatting changes, Chris> I just thought it made the stmts more readable. Usually we recommend formatting changes as separate patches. Personally I'm more inclined to just leave bad formatting alone, to avoid adding noise to the history, but that's just me. Also, the result still has to conform to the GNU standards. Tom