Re: [PATCH] Removing nested functions, part one of lots

2013-01-09 Thread Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko
Looks like nobody objects and I'm fine with this patch. Go ahead. On 01.01.2013 15:42, Colin Watson wrote: > (Part zero was a patch I already committed that dealt with some trivial > cases.) > > As I mentioned on #grub, and following up on > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/grub-devel/2009-04/

Re: [PATCH] Removing nested functions, part one of lots

2013-01-03 Thread Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko
On 01.01.2013 15:42, Colin Watson wrote: > I have a number of patches mostly ready to go, but I'd prefer to make > sure that this general approach is agreed before preparing and sending > more than one of them. I'd like to work one *_iterate function at a > time (except where multiple iterators a

Re: [PATCH] Removing nested functions, part one of lots

2013-01-03 Thread Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko
On 02.01.2013 03:02, Colin Watson wrote: > On Wed, Jan 02, 2013 at 12:05:04AM +, Colin Watson wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 02, 2013 at 01:37:38AM +0400, Andrey Borzenkov wrote: >>> В Tue, 1 Jan 2013 14:42:04 + >>> Colin Watson пишет: * If a hook requires more than one local variable from i

Re: [PATCH] Removing nested functions, part one of lots

2013-01-01 Thread Colin Watson
On Wed, Jan 02, 2013 at 12:05:04AM +, Colin Watson wrote: > On Wed, Jan 02, 2013 at 01:37:38AM +0400, Andrey Borzenkov wrote: > > В Tue, 1 Jan 2013 14:42:04 + > > Colin Watson пишет: > > > * If a hook requires more than one local variable from its parent > > >function, declare "struct

Re: [PATCH] Removing nested functions, part one of lots

2013-01-01 Thread Colin Watson
On Tue, Jan 01, 2013 at 05:24:00PM -0500, richardvo...@gmail.com wrote: > On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Andrey Borzenkov wrote: > > В Tue, 1 Jan 2013 14:42:04 + > > Colin Watson пишет: > > > * If a hook requires more than one local variable from its parent > > >function, declare "struct

Re: [PATCH] Removing nested functions, part one of lots

2013-01-01 Thread Colin Watson
On Wed, Jan 02, 2013 at 01:37:38AM +0400, Andrey Borzenkov wrote: > В Tue, 1 Jan 2013 14:42:04 + > Colin Watson пишет: > > * If a hook requires more than one local variable from its parent > >function, declare "struct _ctx" with the necessary > >variables, and convert both the hook an

Re: [PATCH] Removing nested functions, part one of lots

2013-01-01 Thread richardvo...@gmail.com
On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Andrey Borzenkov wrote: > В Tue, 1 Jan 2013 14:42:04 + > Colin Watson пишет: > > > > > * If a hook requires more than one local variable from its parent > >function, declare "struct _ctx" with the necessary > >variables, and convert both the hook and t

Re: [PATCH] Removing nested functions, part one of lots

2013-01-01 Thread Andrey Borzenkov
В Tue, 1 Jan 2013 14:42:04 + Colin Watson пишет: > > * If a hook requires more than one local variable from its parent >function, declare "struct _ctx" with the necessary >variables, and convert both the hook and the parent to access the >variables in question via that structure

Re: [PATCH] Removing nested functions, part one of lots

2013-01-01 Thread Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko
On 01.01.2013 22:14, Colin Watson wrote: > On Tue, Jan 01, 2013 at 10:31:52AM -0800, Seth Goldberg wrote: >> Yay!! Does this change the minimum GCC version needed to build? > > As Vladimir said, it probably isn't worth the effort at this point for > us to wind back the version we recommend, as I

Re: [PATCH] Removing nested functions, part one of lots

2013-01-01 Thread Colin Watson
On Tue, Jan 01, 2013 at 10:31:52AM -0800, Seth Goldberg wrote: > Yay!! Does this change the minimum GCC version needed to build? As Vladimir said, it probably isn't worth the effort at this point for us to wind back the version we recommend, as I suspect not enough of us can conveniently test with

Re: [PATCH] Removing nested functions, part one of lots

2013-01-01 Thread Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko
On 01.01.2013 19:31, Seth Goldberg wrote: > Yay!! Does this change the minimum GCC version needed to build? We don't support anything older than 4.2. That's unlikely to change. -- Regards Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature _

Re: [PATCH] Removing nested functions, part one of lots

2013-01-01 Thread Seth Goldberg
Yay!! Does this change the minimum GCC version needed to build? Thanks!! -S On Jan 1, 2013, at 6:42 AM, Colin Watson wrote: > (Part zero was a patch I already committed that dealt with some trivial > cases.) > > As I mentioned on #grub, and following up on > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/ht

[PATCH] Removing nested functions, part one of lots

2013-01-01 Thread Colin Watson
(Part zero was a patch I already committed that dealt with some trivial cases.) As I mentioned on #grub, and following up on https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/grub-devel/2009-04/msg00406.html and thread, I'm working on a patch set to eliminate nested functions from GRUB. I'd like to add a couple