This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 1/2] Change gdb_load_shlibs to gdb_load_shlib
- From: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- To: Simon Marchi <simon dot marchi at ericsson dot com>, Yao Qi <qiyaoltc at gmail dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, antoine dot tremblay at ericsson dot com
- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 16:27:15 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Change gdb_load_shlibs to gdb_load_shlib
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1460502865-10999-1-git-send-email-simon dot marchi at ericsson dot com> <864mb4o7qq dot fsf at gmail dot com> <570FB48A dot 8000201 at ericsson dot com>
On 04/14/2016 04:17 PM, Simon Marchi wrote:
> On 16-04-14 05:33 AM, Yao Qi wrote:
>> Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@ericsson.com> writes:
>>
>>> -proc gdb_load_shlibs { args } {
>>> - foreach file $args {
>>> - gdb_remote_download target [shlib_target_file $file]
>>> - }
>>> +proc gdb_load_shlib { file } {
>>> + set dest [gdb_remote_download target [shlib_target_file $file]]
>>
>> Why don't define a new proc gdb_load_shlib but leave gdb_load_shlibs
>> there? gdb_load_shlibs can invoke gdb_load_shlib in a loop, and callers
>> of gdb_load_shlibs are not changed.
>
> It would have been the lazy but clever way to do it, for sure. I hadn't
> thought of that.
>
> I am not sure I like it though, because it makes multiple procs that do kind
> of the same thing, but with subtle differences. That's what causes confusion
> later. It's the same feeling I had about gdb_download and gdb_remote_download...
>
> Pedro (and others), what do you think?
I agree that that may end up causing confusion.
Thanks,
Pedro Alves