From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27806 invoked by alias); 15 Sep 2003 20:52:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 27798 invoked from network); 15 Sep 2003 20:52:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 Sep 2003 20:52:15 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.22 #1 (Debian)) id 19z0KU-00017T-LA for ; Mon, 15 Sep 2003 16:52:14 -0400 Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 20:52:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Large array printing patch for Fortran Message-ID: <20030915205214.GA23393@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20030910143536.GA23943@streamline-computing.com> <20030915155834.GA8599@nevyn.them.org> <20030915195058.GA12113@streamline-computing.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030915195058.GA12113@streamline-computing.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-09/txt/msg00339.txt.bz2 On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 08:50:58PM +0100, David Lecomber wrote: > On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 11:58:35AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > >Yes, I know that this patch hasn't been reviewed. That's a shame. Nag > >the list if you get impatient, but please stop checking things in to > >CVS! You're listed as a "Write After Approval" maintainer. If you > >can't wait for approval I'll ask to have you removed from that list. > > > >This was on my list to look at this week, when we were sure 6.0 was in > >the hole. > > Hi Daniel, > > You reviewed this one May 16th -- I made the typographical corrections > you asked for. It could be that gdb-6.0 doesn't suffer from the bug > and the fix would be unnecessary (but nonetheless harmless) now. If > it doesn't work, please roll it back. > > I asked another gdb maintainer if I'd got the hang of what the > procedures were - after my naughty commit last week ;-) - and he > confirmed I now understood it. On not getting a response from the > list, I took that to mean it's okay. Well, actually he said 'wait for > responses'; I timed-out after 5 days. My mistake, mea culpa, but I > wasn't given any indication that a reply would occur! Sorry, but that's life when all the maintainers are busy :( Just please don't time-out into committing. In any case: - you left the whitespace change before f77_print_array_1. - you still haven't gotten GNU coding style right: + if (*elts >= print_max && i < F77_DIM_SIZE (nss)) { + fprintf_filtered (stream, "..."); + } Should be either: + if (*elts >= print_max && i < F77_DIM_SIZE (nss)) + { + fprintf_filtered (stream, "..."); + } or + if (*elts >= print_max && i < F77_DIM_SIZE (nss)) + fprintf_filtered (stream, "..."); Probably the latter. + for (i = 0; (i < F77_DIM_SIZE (nss) && (*elts) < print_max); i++, (*elts)++) should be + for (i = 0; i < F77_DIM_SIZE (nss) && (*elts) < print_max; + i++, (*elts)++) i.e. watch line length. + if ((( *elts) == print_max - 1) && (i != (F77_DIM_SIZE (nss) - 1))) should be + if ((*elts == print_max - 1) && (i != F77_DIM_SIZE (nss) - 1)) That's why I asked you to repost first. It saves us iterating inside of CVS. The patch itself is fine. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer