From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12399 invoked by alias); 20 Feb 2003 21:03:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 12391 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2003 21:03:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jackfruit.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.38.136) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 20 Feb 2003 21:03:35 -0000 Received: (from carlton@localhost) by jackfruit.Stanford.EDU (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1KL3SY32659; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 13:03:28 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: jackfruit.Stanford.EDU: carlton set sender to carlton@math.stanford.edu using -f To: Elena Zannoni Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa] revert my previous search_symbols change, add comment References: <15957.16088.234106.47580@localhost.redhat.com> From: David Carlton Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 21:03:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <15957.16088.234106.47580@localhost.redhat.com> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00497.txt.bz2 On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 15:47:20 -0500, Elena Zannoni said: > David Carlton writes: >> In my patch from 2002-12-23, I changed some code in search_symbols >> from a call to lookup_symbol to a call to lookup_symbol_aux_minsyms. >> At that time, I didn't understand exactly what >> lookup_symbol_aux_minsyms did; now that I understand that function >> better, I don't think that change was a good idea. >> >> So this patch reverts that change. At Andrew's suggestion, I've added >> a comment as well, saying what I'd really like to replace the call to >> lookup_symbol with. > OK Thanks; I'll commit it in a sec. >> In my next patch, I'll change lookup_symbol_aux_minsyms to actually do >> something correct (now that Daniel has been kind enough to demangle >> partial symbols for me), but I wanted to get this part of the change >> out of the way first. >> > Question, where does the other patch I just replied to stand wrt to this? > Should we forget about the old patch? Crossing e-mails; by now, you've gotten the e-mail where I explain that, or will in a sec. David Carlton carlton@math.stanford.edu