From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16656 invoked by alias); 21 Jan 2008 02:27:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 16639 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Jan 2008 02:27:46 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 02:27:28 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CEF02A9717; Sun, 20 Jan 2008 21:27:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id EltXyNjMvjRz; Sun, 20 Jan 2008 21:27:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE6DA2A9714; Sun, 20 Jan 2008 21:27:25 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8FDC3E7ACB; Sun, 20 Jan 2008 18:27:18 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 02:27:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: jimb@codesourcery.com, mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, uweigand@de.ibm.com, msnyder@specifix.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC/RFA?] Should break FILE:LINENO skip prologue? Message-ID: <20080121022718.GJ28020@adacore.com> References: <200801152140.m0FLeMha003566@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> <200801161034.m0GAYfpk000326@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20080120150224.GI28020@adacore.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i 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: 2008-01/txt/msg00500.txt.bz2 > > > -For example: in C, this is the line with the open brace. > > > +For example, in C, this is the line with the open brace. > > > > This is actually not true. It's usually the first line of code > > past the open brace. > > You seem to be thinking about source code formatted according to GNU > coding standards ;-) But C allows code to appear on the same line as > the open brace, so it's not simple to say this with absolute accuracy. I agree that we can't always be accurate. > I think on balance, the current wording is not bad: after all, why > should a GDB user care whether the brace itself does or does not > generate executable code? I agree that a typical user doesn't care, but I disagree that the current wording is OK. In the vast majority of the C code that I have seen, except in one-liner functions, people didn't write code on the same line as the opening brace. So the sentence will be false most of the time (in my case). I suggest we just delete this sentence altogether. Or, maybe what we can do is use an actual example where we can use the formatting we want. > How about if I say that the extension is in addition to the ``normal'' > expression syntax? Like this: > > Here @var{address} may be any expression valid in the current working > language (@pxref{Languages, working language}) that specifies a code > address. In addition, as a convenience, @value{GDBN} extends the > semantics of expressions... Sure, it is clearer. -- Joel