This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [patchv3] Sort threads for thread apply all (bt)
- From: Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>
- To: Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>, gdb-patches <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 10:59:55 -0800
- Subject: Re: [patchv3] Sort threads for thread apply all (bt)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20150115183316 dot GA16405 at host2 dot jankratochvil dot net> <CADPb22R_dY8nfU4bgpPS+4K5gG9cdMzCqW--H85hMwBDdh+MRg at mail dot gmail dot com> <20150116233802 dot GA8732 at host2 dot jankratochvil dot net> <21696 dot 17350 dot 451535 dot 337528 at ruffy2 dot mtv dot corp dot google dot com> <20150122184655 dot GA15064 at host2 dot jankratochvil dot net>
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Jan Kratochvil
>> This triggers my "passing parameters as global variables" alarm,
>> and while one could instead have two different functions,
> I believe qsort_r() is more appropriate, using two different functions I would
> feel rather as a workaround of missing qsort_r(). But I guess (I cannot easily
> test due to missing slaves and no patch testing feature in Sergio's Buildbot
> yet) some of the supported platforms do not provide qsort_r() so it would need
> a new gdb/gnulib/ module. But at least one of my gdb/gnulib/ patches is still
> under review so it would create dependency between unrelated patchsets.
I think you're splitting hairs here.
> + if (cmd != NULL && (check_for_argument (&cmd, "-ascending", strlen ("-asc"))))
Also, remove the extra parens around check_for_argument?