Re: [PATCH]: C++ mangling patch that is about to be committed

[Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@cygnus.com>]

Daniel Berlin writes:
 > Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> writes:
 > 
 > > Daniel Berlin wrote:
 > > > 
 > > > Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@cygnus.com> writes:
 > > > 
 > > > > Daniel,
 > > > >
 > > > > There is an extra change in symtab.h that has nothing to do with the
 > > > > changelog. I think that is part of a different patch.
 > > > No, I missed the changelog entry for it, stupidly.
 > > > 
 > > > > BTW, I thought
 > > > > we agreed to leave the do--while construct in the
 > > > > SYMBOL_INIT_DEMANGLED_NAME macro.
 > > > I'd rather not.
 > > > It's not used in if statements, and *never* should be.
 > > > The argument that someone, someday, might want to, just isn't
 > > > convincing, because they shouldn't.
 > > 
 > > Umm... Daniel, did you and Elena discuss it?
 > 
 > Elena didn't participate in that discussion, it was held on
 > gdb-patches in clear view.
 > 

And the consensus was that the do--while would stay or the macro would
be changed to a function.  So, let's just leave the do--while, and
make the c++ changes you propose to the macro. No need to make it a
function this time around.

 > > Overriding her opinion by taking it out of a file
 > > that she maintains and creating a new one that you
 > > maintain does NOT seem to be in the spirit of
 > > maintainership...
 > Err, i'm not.
 > It's always been in symtab.h
 > I don't plan on moving that macro to cp-support.h,.
 > What made you think it was being taken out of a file she maintains,
 > and moved to one i maintain.
 > Elena is the backup maintainer.
 > THat's part of the whole problem.
 > The maintainer hasn't participated in maintaining the file in a while.
 > Like I said, since this stuff isn't in my maintainership, i'm not
 > fixing it anymore.
 > Someone else can fix it, whether it affects C++ support or not.
 > That is what part of being  a maintainer is, right? Maintaining?
 > 

You don't have to fix it. It can stay as it is now.  

 > It's interesting that you seem to be bashing my plan to move the C++
 > support specific things to cp-support.c, out of places they don't
 > belong (this is what i'm assuming you think i'm doing when you say
 > moving things out of a file someone else maintains, and into one i
 > maintain), since nobody maintains them but me, because they are C++ specific.
 > 
 > I'm expected to look at problems related to them, and fix them, rather
 > than the person whose maintainership they do fall under, yet I have
 > to get the patches approved by other people, since i'm not supposed to
 > maintain them. So i'm to maintain them, but not maintain them.  Weird.
 > Nobody else has fixed this stuff in years, so it's not a matter of me
 > just getting to it first.
 > 
 > 

Maybe not everybody feels like I do about this, but I believe that
peer review is important. Whether or not I am the maintainer for
something, I always like to post my patches and have other people look
at them. Yes, sometimes it may take a while, because of lack of
coordination among the maintainers, or because the maintainers are
busy, but I think it is very worthwhile.

Unfortunately sometimes there isn't a clear demarcation between areas
of maintainership, often there is overlap. Nothing wrong with
that. Two pairs of eyes should probably do a better job, I would
think.

About moving the c++ stuff out of the symtab related files. Dan, post
your proposed changes when you are ready, and then we can talk more.
Do you think it would be a good idea to have a C++ co/backup
maintainer, if this would make your life easier?

 > --Dan
 > 
 > 

Elena
From kevinb@cygnus.com Tue Oct 10 16:16:00 2000
From: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@cygnus.com>
To: Daniel Berlin <dberlin@redhat.com>
Cc: Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@cygnus.com>, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH]: C++ mangling patch that is about to be committed
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:16:00 -0000
Message-id: <1001010231608.ZM2722@ocotillo.lan>
References: <m38zrw4w2p.fsf@dan2.cygnus.com> <14819.13803.331153.108644@kwikemart.cygnus.com> <m3k8bgadxp.fsf@dan2.cygnus.com> <1001010173833.ZM2250@ocotillo.lan> <m38zrwa832.fsf@dan2.cygnus.com> <dberlin@redhat.com>
X-SW-Source: 2000-10/msg00050.html
Content-length: 476

On Oct 10,  2:01pm, Daniel Berlin wrote:

> I really resent the implication.
> I split the patches and did modifications based on the existing set of
> patches, which is why the patch has it.

My apologies then.  But I suggest you be more careful about what you
send to the list in the future.  It is rather disconcerting to warn
you about a problem (which you say you've fixed in your version of the
sources) only to see it show up in later patches again (and again).

Kevin
From dberlin@redhat.com Tue Oct 10 17:16:00 2000
From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin@redhat.com>
To: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@cygnus.com>
Cc: Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@cygnus.com>, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH]: C++ mangling patch that is about to be committed
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:16:00 -0000
Message-id: <m3g0m46xm4.fsf@dan2.cygnus.com>
References: <m38zrw4w2p.fsf@dan2.cygnus.com> <14819.13803.331153.108644@kwikemart.cygnus.com> <m3k8bgadxp.fsf@dan2.cygnus.com> <1001010173833.ZM2250@ocotillo.lan> <m38zrwa832.fsf@dan2.cygnus.com> <1001010231608.ZM2722@ocotillo.lan>
X-SW-Source: 2000-10/msg00051.html
Content-length: 936

Kevin Buettner <kevinb@cygnus.com> writes:

> On Oct 10,  2:01pm, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> 
> > I really resent the implication.
> > I split the patches and did modifications based on the existing set of
> > patches, which is why the patch has it.
> 
> My apologies then.  But I suggest you be more careful about what you
> send to the list in the future.  It is rather disconcerting to warn
> you about a problem (which you say you've fixed in your version of the
> sources) only to see it show up in later patches again (and again).
> 
> Kevin

Yes, I'll try. It's mainly because I have so many changes to those
files that it's easier to just modify the original patches by hand
than try to rediff.
I haven't rediffed this stuff since I originally sent it.
Which is why it keeps showing up.

I actually have to checkout the repository into a new directory just
to commit this set of patches, so i don't get the other changes.


--Dan