From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22799 invoked by alias); 30 Dec 2006 20:30:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 22791 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Dec 2006 20:30:27 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Sat, 30 Dec 2006 20:30:23 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1H0kqO-0006fT-B6; Sat, 30 Dec 2006 15:30:16 -0500 Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 20:30:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Vladimir Prus , Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [mi] [ada] varobjs for registers 2 Message-ID: <20061230203016.GB25539@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Vladimir Prus , Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200612202137.29038.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <20061221072102.GF3640@adacore.com> <200612202137.29038.vladimir@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20061221072102.GF3640@adacore.com> <200612202137.29038.vladimir@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-12/txt/msg00370.txt.bz2 On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 09:37:28PM +0300, Vladimir Prus wrote: > > This is a second revision of the patch to add MI command that > creates varobjs for registers. The command is renamed to -var-list > and used like: > > -var-list --registers > > There are now docs and tests. The created variable objects no longer > have 'public' pseudo-fields, no matter what the language of the program is. > > Along the way, I've promoted a private function in ada-lang.c to language.c, > so I'd appreciate if Ada maintainers take a quick look. > > OK? Before I look at this, is it the latest version? You and Nick had an active discussion about this while I was on vacation. On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 11:21:02AM +0400, Joel Brobecker wrote: > I believe the comment describing the function should be placed besides > the function implementation, in language.c. This is the habit we have > at least in the GNU projects I've been involved in. In Ada, we much > prefer to place the documentation besides the declaration, as you did, > but C allows you to put as many declarations of the same entity as you > want, and wherever you want. So this conventions allows us to know > exactly where the documentation is... GDB is inconsistent about this, so I don't think it makes much difference. I've been putting the comments in headers for global functions and referring to the header from the implementation, but that's not great either. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery