This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 02/16 v2] Refactor follow-fork message printing
- From: "Breazeal, Don" <donb at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 11:45:51 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/16 v2] Refactor follow-fork message printing
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1407434395-19089-1-git-send-email-donb at codesourcery dot com> <1408580964-27916-3-git-send-email-donb at codesourcery dot com> <5425C3E4 dot 3060305 at redhat dot com> <5425C92B dot 1010101 at codesourcery dot com> <543E9C0F dot 9030701 at redhat dot com> <544841F0 dot 7000604 at codesourcery dot com> <544A4789 dot 6020500 at redhat dot com>
On 10/24/2014 5:35 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 10/23/2014 12:46 AM, Breazeal, Don wrote:
>> On 10/15/2014 9:08 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>>>> On 09/26/2014 09:14 PM, Breazeal, Don wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/26/2014 12:52 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 08/21/2014 01:29 AM, Don Breazeal wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> This patch refactors the code that prints messages related to follow-fork
>> ---snip---
>>
>>>> Sorry, I still don't think you're new patch (sent as follow up) is
>>>> an improvement... Having to explain the "Hardcoded 1's" in a
>>>> comment is a red sign to me. :-/
>> Fair enough.
>>
>>>>
>>>> Could you do a patch that just adds the missing output, and fixes
>>>> fork/vfork without moving the printing code to a separate function?
>>>> For the fork vs vfork issue, doing ' is_vfork ? "vfork" : "fork" ' is
>>>> fine.
>> Thanks for clarifying the i18n issues for me. The revised patch is
>> included below, with an updated commit message as well. Is this version OK?
>
> Yes, thanks!
>
> Pedro Alves
>
Thanks, this is pushed in.
--Don