From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19512 invoked by alias); 14 May 2012 11:54:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 19499 invoked by uid 22791); 14 May 2012 11:54:02 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 14 May 2012 11:53:47 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q4EBrhNw022905 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 14 May 2012 07:53:43 -0400 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-17.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.17]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q4EBrd6u020574 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 14 May 2012 07:53:42 -0400 Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 11:54:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" Cc: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Sergio Durigan Subject: Re: [RFA] MIPS16 FP manual call/return fixes Message-ID: <20120514115338.GA14436@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <87mx5y70mv.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20120501140457.GA1691@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120502212811.GA22285@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120512193750.GA26427@host2.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) 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: 2012-05/txt/msg00502.txt.bz2 On Mon, 14 May 2012 11:11:14 +0200, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: [ Mostly unrelated to this patch: ] > strictly speaking we can keep the structure flat if > we decide that complicating it is not worth the saving. Technically yes but it is more readable to know this field is valid/used only with this subclass. And it is better not just to rely on unstructured comments content. And to give the field name its real meaning ("func_addr") and not just a generic name of overload ("related"). A good example of these overloaded generic fields without subclassing is main_type which is such as mess I still have problems to fully understand it. > Actually, I relied on the lack of compilation errors so far; it seems > that while we do have -Wall -Werror, we have -Wno-unused as well which > implies -Wno-unused-variable and has defeated my assumptions. Any > particular reason why we disable this warning? Because there are now many such unused-variable cases needing to be fixed, there were recent threads about it (see subject /unused/) by Sergio. It looks still not all the cases are fixed to enable the warnings. > > > b->type = bp_gnu_ifunc_resolver; > > > > Empty line before a comment according to GDB Coding Standards. > > > > > + /* Remember the resolver's address for use by the return [...] > I believe this requirement applies to function and variable/type/etc. > definitions only and I haven't seen this style applied inline in many > places (including the original comment above, actually). Are you sure? I find it more readable with the empty line even in this case. You are right there are too many of such cases without empty line in GDB. Therefore I do not mind, check it in either way. Thanks, Jan