From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28055 invoked by alias); 11 Nov 2004 20:14:19 -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 27967 invoked from network); 11 Nov 2004 20:14:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO walton.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 11 Nov 2004 20:14:05 -0000 Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl [192.168.0.2]) by walton.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id iABKE3IG006932; Thu, 11 Nov 2004 21:14:03 +0100 (CET) Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.12.6p3/8.12.6) with ESMTP id iABKE2et098675; Thu, 11 Nov 2004 21:14:02 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from kettenis@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.12.6p3/8.12.6/Submit) id iABKE2qS098672; Thu, 11 Nov 2004 21:14:02 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 20:14:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200411112014.iABKE2qS098672@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: eliz@gnu.org CC: cagney@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <01c4c826$Blat.v2.2.2$10ab7100@zahav.net.il> (eliz@gnu.org) Subject: Re: [commit] Convert COERCE_* to functions References: <41926591.9080206@gnu.org> <01c4c75e$Blat.v2.2.2$ca853fc0@zahav.net.il> <41939529.8050308@gnu.org> <01c4c826$Blat.v2.2.2$10ab7100@zahav.net.il> X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00244.txt.bz2 Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 21:37:45 +0200 From: "Eli Zaretskii" > Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 11:36:57 -0500 > From: Andrew Cagney > Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > > > 1) Can you tell the reason for these changes? > > > > 2) Personally, I think that > > > > foo = foobar (foo); > > > > is not a good style of C programming. > > opaque `struct value' > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2004-11/msg00010.html Thanks. Perhaps it would help in the future to post the URL with the patch. Come on Eli. This patch came a few days after Andrew announced he was going to make `struct value' opaque. > Converting a macro to a function has for a long time been considered > obvious. I don't think it's obvious, but if I'm the only one, let's codify that where we say what falls under the ``obvious'' rule. Codifying this kind of details is stupid. Codifying the general rules should be enough. Mark