From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16397 invoked by alias); 22 Oct 2003 23:28:11 -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 16390 invoked from network); 22 Oct 2003 23:28:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hawaii.kealia.com) (209.3.10.89) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Oct 2003 23:28:10 -0000 Received: by hawaii.kealia.com (Postfix, from userid 2049) id 3925DC5D1; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:28:10 -0700 (PDT) To: Jim Blandy Cc: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Kris Warkentin , Daniel Jacobowitz Subject: Re: RFA: osabi: correct test for compatible handlers References: <3F96D128.5040904@redhat.com> <3F970598.9020908@redhat.com> From: David Carlton Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 23:28:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Jim Blandy's message of "22 Oct 2003 18:16:31 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) XEmacs/21.4 (Rational FORTRAN, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00664.txt.bz2 On 22 Oct 2003 18:16:31 -0500, Jim Blandy said: > But I think it's easier to see what the *resulting code* does with > the function in place. We should put the readability of the > resultant code above readability of the change. You say, "A can use > a handler for B if A can run code for B", and then you can make a > separate check to see whether can_run_code_for is correct. I very much agree with this. David Carlton carlton@kealia.com