This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [ping 2] [RFA][PATCH v4 0/5] Add TDB regset support
- From: Mark Kettenis <mark dot kettenis at xs4all dot nl>
- To: arnez at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com
- Cc: lgustavo at codesourcery dot com, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, Ulrich dot Weigand at de dot ibm dot com
- Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 17:58:16 +0200 (CEST)
- 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> <87zjtnsupy dot fsf at br87z6lw dot de dot ibm dot com>
> From: Andreas Arnez <arnez@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 17:34:17 +0200
>
> Luis Machado <lgustavo@codesourcery.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?
Well, I really do agree with Luis. Your solution is just harder to
read and I don't see the limited amout of copy/pasted lines as a
problem. The logic to select the right array is fairly
straightforword.