This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [ping 2] [RFA][PATCH v4 0/5] Add TDB regset support
- From: Andreas Arnez <arnez at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- To: lgustavo at codesourcery dot com
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, Ulrich dot Weigand at de dot ibm dot com
- Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 17:34:17 +0200
- Subject: Re: [ping 2] [RFA][PATCH v4 0/5] Add TDB regset support
- References: <87zju3intq dot fsf at br87z6lw dot de dot ibm dot com> <87d2qt83au dot fsf at br87z6lw dot de dot ibm dot com> <874nbwtdgk dot fsf_-_ at br87z6lw dot de dot ibm dot com> <51E3F8B3 dot 10109 at codesourcery dot com>
Luis Machado <email@example.com> writes:
> I didn't go through your last update of the patch, but FTR i still
> think we should make the core file sections static and store them in
> some form of array instead of hardcoding their contents in numerous
> function calls.
In the PowerPC case the patch includes four call-back invocations, all
contained in a 20-line iterator function. I'd hardly call that
"numerous function calls". And I consider it an improvement over the
original code, which had six hard-coded static array initializers with
various copy-/pasted lines, plus the logic for selecting the correct
array. The improvement is even more drastic for S/390. Don't you
agree? Or do you see even more potential for improvement?