From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25759 invoked by alias); 30 Jun 2011 12:57:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 25751 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Jun 2011 12:57:23 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.2 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, 30 Jun 2011 12:57:09 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p5UCv7oR014234 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 30 Jun 2011 08:57:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p5UCv5jv006201; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 08:57:06 -0400 From: Phil Muldoon To: Kevin Pouget Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] [python] gdb.Inferior reference count fixes References: Reply-to: pmuldoon@redhat.com X-URL: http://www.redhat.com Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 12:57:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Kevin Pouget's message of "Thu, 30 Jun 2011 14:40:50 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2011-06/txt/msg00488.txt.bz2 Kevin Pouget writes: > Hi Phil, > > thanks for your offer to split the patch this way, I hope that the FSF > paperwork won't take too long so that we can apply these patches Hope so too! This patch does not have a dependency on your patch so (pending approval) it could go in now. > just one thing: > > + thread_object *found = NULL; > ... > + if (found) > + return found; > return NULL; > > the last lines are equivalent to: return found; is it on purpose (ie, > for readability) ? I think this was a rewrite and I missed that hunk. It is correct, if redundant. Thanks for spotting it. I'll alter it locally. Cheers Phil