mbox series

[v2,0/5] Random cleanup patches

Message ID 20240207165445.117512-1-simon.marchi@efficios.com
Headers
Series Random cleanup patches |

Message

Simon Marchi Feb. 7, 2024, 4:53 p.m. UTC 
  This is v2 of:

https://inbox.sourceware.org/gdb-patches/20240206171514.119244-1-simon.marchi@efficios.com/T/#m396f40ecb617db9e71beae00f82f21bae92a36cd

The only difference is to revert using the current inferior in patch 4,
as described here:

https://inbox.sourceware.org/gdb-patches/20240206171514.119244-1-simon.marchi@efficios.com/T/#mb86bb48b17bdb01e5c0c28609aa168cb25722958

Simon Marchi (5):
  gdb: add program_space parameter to mark_breakpoints_out
  gdb: add inferior parameter to breakpoint_init_inferior
  gdb: add program_space parameter to disable_breakpoints_in_shlibs
  gdb: add program_space parameter to clear_solib
  gdb: remove unnecessary nullptr check in remove_user_added_objfile

 gdb/breakpoint.c  | 35 +++++++++++------------------------
 gdb/breakpoint.h  | 22 ++++++++++++++++++----
 gdb/corelow.c     |  2 +-
 gdb/infcmd.c      | 10 +++++-----
 gdb/infrun.c      |  6 +++---
 gdb/solib.c       | 18 +++++++++---------
 gdb/solib.h       |  6 +++---
 gdb/symtab.h      |  4 ----
 gdb/target.c      |  4 ++--
 gdb/windows-nat.c |  2 +-
 10 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 56 deletions(-)


base-commit: 6fb99666f4bbc79708acb8efb2d80e57de67b80b

Comments

Andrew Burgess Feb. 8, 2024, 2:39 p.m. UTC | #1 
Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> writes:

> This is v2 of:
>
> https://inbox.sourceware.org/gdb-patches/20240206171514.119244-1-simon.marchi@efficios.com/T/#m396f40ecb617db9e71beae00f82f21bae92a36cd
>
> The only difference is to revert using the current inferior in patch 4,
> as described here:
>
> https://inbox.sourceware.org/gdb-patches/20240206171514.119244-1-simon.marchi@efficios.com/T/#mb86bb48b17bdb01e5c0c28609aa168cb25722958

So I didn't read V1 of this series prior to commenting on patch #4.
Having been back to re-read the V1 series, and the problems that you ran
into, I still think passing the current_inferior() would be a better
choice in #4.

For everything else:

Approved-By: Andrew Burgess <aburgess@redhat.com>

Thanks,
Andrew
Simon Marchi Feb. 9, 2024, 4:07 p.m. UTC | #2 
On 2024-02-08 09:39, Andrew Burgess wrote:
> Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> writes:
> 
>> This is v2 of:
>>
>> https://inbox.sourceware.org/gdb-patches/20240206171514.119244-1-simon.marchi@efficios.com/T/#m396f40ecb617db9e71beae00f82f21bae92a36cd
>>
>> The only difference is to revert using the current inferior in patch 4,
>> as described here:
>>
>> https://inbox.sourceware.org/gdb-patches/20240206171514.119244-1-simon.marchi@efficios.com/T/#mb86bb48b17bdb01e5c0c28609aa168cb25722958
> 
> So I didn't read V1 of this series prior to commenting on patch #4.
> Having been back to re-read the V1 series, and the problems that you ran
> into, I still think passing the current_inferior() would be a better
> choice in #4.
> 
> For everything else:
> 
> Approved-By: Andrew Burgess <aburgess@redhat.com>

The comments on patch #4 were resolved, so I'll push that series now.
Thanks!

Simon