From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com>
To: Mark Kettenis <kettenis@chello.nl>
Cc: rearnsha@arm.com, drow@false.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [rfa/arm] Fix some structs.exp failures
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 09:58:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200403040956.i249umg26863@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 03 Mar 2004 22:34:52 +0100." <200403032134.i23LYqYD001561@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org>
> check_typedef is completely
> undocumented -- no mention in the internals documentation, and not even a
> comment in gdbtypes.[ch].
>
> There is one comment about check_typedef()/CHECK_TYPEDEF() in
> gdbtypes.h. Anyway, Daniels fix is OK. Before you look at a type the
> way arm_use_struct_convention does, you should have called
> check_typedef(), otherwise you'll look at the typedef itself, and not
> its underlying type.
>
I guess if you call a comment on an (apparently) unrelated macro 400 lines
earlier in the file documentation then I was wrong. However, that still
begs a load of questions:
What are the input parameters?
What is returned?
What is it safe to pass?
Can it be called more than once?
Does it operate recursively?
Does it change the input parameter, or is a new object created?
Some of these may be obvious from analysing the source, but that shouldn't
really be necessary.
R.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com>
To: Mark Kettenis <kettenis@chello.nl>
Cc: rearnsha@arm.com, drow@false.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [rfa/arm] Fix some structs.exp failures
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 00:09:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200403040956.i249umg26863@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20040319000900.Yz3NqXAdKMtzb_6EoiuXJuSa-EpwuRmvr1sY5gofAyY@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 03 Mar 2004 22:34:52 +0100." <200403032134.i23LYqYD001561@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org>
> check_typedef is completely
> undocumented -- no mention in the internals documentation, and not even a
> comment in gdbtypes.[ch].
>
> There is one comment about check_typedef()/CHECK_TYPEDEF() in
> gdbtypes.h. Anyway, Daniels fix is OK. Before you look at a type the
> way arm_use_struct_convention does, you should have called
> check_typedef(), otherwise you'll look at the typedef itself, and not
> its underlying type.
>
I guess if you call a comment on an (apparently) unrelated macro 400 lines
earlier in the file documentation then I was wrong. However, that still
begs a load of questions:
What are the input parameters?
What is returned?
What is it safe to pass?
Can it be called more than once?
Does it operate recursively?
Does it change the input parameter, or is a new object created?
Some of these may be obvious from analysing the source, but that shouldn't
really be necessary.
R.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-03-04 9:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-03-02 17:17 Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-03-03 17:29 ` Richard Earnshaw
2004-03-03 21:35 ` Mark Kettenis
2004-03-04 9:58 ` Richard Earnshaw [this message]
2004-03-19 0:09 ` Richard Earnshaw
2004-03-19 0:09 ` Mark Kettenis
2004-03-09 17:11 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-03-19 0:09 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-03-19 0:09 ` Richard Earnshaw
2004-03-19 0:09 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200403040956.i249umg26863@pc960.cambridge.arm.com \
--to=rearnsha@arm.com \
--cc=drow@false.org \
--cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
--cc=kettenis@chello.nl \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox