On 1/4/21 2:26 am, Alex White wrote: > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 10:30 PM Chris Johns <chr...@rtems.org> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> When I looked at this on vc@ I saw it is broken. I am sorry I did not pick >> this >> up in the review. >> >> On 31/3/21 5:20 am, Joel Sherrill wrote: >>> Module: rtems-tools >>> Branch: master >>> Commit: 420d7a13672991a1480d06ac02190f2976b9253b >>> Changeset: >>> http://git.rtems.org/rtems-tools/commit/?id=420d7a13672991a1480d06ac02190f2976b9253b >>> >>> Author: Alex White <alex.wh...@oarcorp.com> >>> Date: Wed Mar 3 09:48:00 2021 -0600 >>> >>> rld-process: Add named tempfile constructor >>> >>> This adds a new tempfile constructor for creating a named tempfile >>> rather than generating the name. >>> >>> --- >>> >>> rtemstoolkit/rld-process.cpp | 11 +++++++++++ >>> rtemstoolkit/rld-process.h | 7 +++++++ >>> 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/rtemstoolkit/rld-process.cpp b/rtemstoolkit/rld-process.cpp >>> index 30e0605..4160759 100644 >>> --- a/rtemstoolkit/rld-process.cpp >>> +++ b/rtemstoolkit/rld-process.cpp >>> @@ -169,6 +169,17 @@ namespace rld >>> _name = temporaries.get (suffix, _keep); >>> } >>> >>> + tempfile::tempfile (const std::string& name, >>> + const std::string& suffix, >>> + bool _keep) >> >> As a side issue this should be `keep` and not `_keep`. Could this please be >> fixed with fix that is needed. >> >>> + : _name(name + suffix), >>> + suffix(suffix), >>> + overridden (false), >>> + fd (-1), >>> + level (0) >>> + { >>> + } >> >> This constructor is empty and so the file is not created in the temp path on >> Unix or Windows and it is not registered to be deleted. I am sorry I did not >> notice this before. How was this change tested? >> >> Now I think about this change I am not sure it is right. Why you are using >> this >> interface when the file is not in a temp directory and is not being deleted? > > Hi Chris, > > This patch set up the interfaces used in the "covoar: Add option to create > named objdumps" patch that I sent. > > We determined that patch was not needed given its hacked-togetherness along > with future speedups that we had in mind which would make it obsolete anyway. > > This patch should have been removed from the set to be committed, but I > forgot to send out a notice to exclude it. Sorry for the confusion. > > This commit should be reverted.
Ah OK. Could you or Joel please close #4368 with this as a comment? Thanks Chris _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
