From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5772 invoked by alias); 8 Jan 2009 13:09:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 5763 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Jan 2009 13:09:18 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:09:14 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77A6B2A9681; Thu, 8 Jan 2009 08:09:12 -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 g-jlyU42lEuZ; Thu, 8 Jan 2009 08:09:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3EE42A9683; Thu, 8 Jan 2009 08:09:11 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id ADEE3E7ACD; Thu, 8 Jan 2009 17:09:04 +0400 (RET) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:09:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Kai Tietz Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] Reading coff-pe-read files Message-ID: <20090108130904.GD20220@adacore.com> References: <20090108111002.GT3664@adacore.com> <20090108125816.GC20220@adacore.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090108125816.GC20220@adacore.com> 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: 2009-01/txt/msg00154.txt.bz2 > > > > 2009-01-08 Kai Tietz > > > > > > > > * coff-pe-read.c (read_pe_exported_syms): Enable read of PE+ > > > > export directory. > > Approved. Actually, the compiler just spotted a couple of syntax errors. GASP! We should have both been more careful. Can you please fix them before checking in? > - if ((strcmp (target, "pe-i386") != 0) && (strcmp (target, "pei-i386") != 0)) > + is_pe64 = ((strcmp (target, "pe-x86-64") == 0) > + || ((strcmp (target, "pei-x86-64") == 0)); ^^ One '(' too many here. Also, I can never determine in diffs whether the weird formatting is because of tabs or because it is wrong. But in this case, the "||" is put at the wrong location. I know it looks nicer if the two strcmp expressions are aligned, but any formatter will destroy that, and we do use GNU indent once in a while. So let's be consistent and format the above as follow: > + is_pe64 = ((strcmp (target, "pe-x86-64") == 0) > + || ((strcmp (target, "pei-x86-64") == 0)); Same for is_pe32. > + if (is_pe64) > + num_entries = pe_get32 (dll, opthdr_ofs + 108; ^^ missing ')' here. Thanks, -- Joel