From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8225 invoked by alias); 17 Apr 2009 00:19:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 8217 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Apr 2009 00:19:34 -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; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 00:19:29 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 290B32BAC4C; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 20:19:28 -0400 (EDT) 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 QDwexq303Kem; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 20:19:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E781F2BAC4A; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 20:19:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9027EF58C1; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 17:19:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 00:19:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Pierre Muller Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb_ari.sh cleanup Message-ID: <20090417001923.GQ7585@adacore.com> References: <001f01c9beec$934dd280$b9e97780$@u-strasbg.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <001f01c9beec$934dd280$b9e97780$@u-strasbg.fr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) 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: 2009-04/txt/msg00406.txt.bz2 > I did not handle two macros, because > they are unused but are still present in docs: > REGISTER_U_ADDR > PROCESS_LINENUMBER_HOOK Let's just remove them from the documentation. It's a very simple change, but let me know if you'd like me to take care of it. > Miscellaneous questions: > 1a) Should the PARAMS rule be moved to code section? > 1b) Same question for __FUNCTION__ rule. > 1c) Idem for ARGSUSED Does it really make a difference? If it helps you analyze the results, then I'd say go for it. > 1d) Idem for (name missing?) > 2) LITTLE_ENDIAN and BIG_ENDIAN still exists in configure, > should I still remove the rule? I don't think so. I don't know what the details are, but I'm wondering whether the macros might be defined by the compiler, thus making it possible for us to accidently reintroduce this usage again. I'd say, let's keep the rule. > 3) HAVE_VFORK is still present in config.in > should I keep the rule or should we remove it from config.in first? We need to keep the rule. That macro is still used by gdb_vfork.h and it is a valid use of that macro. In a way, this is very similar to the use of "abort" - only very selected uses are allowed. -- Joel