From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27011 invoked by alias); 11 Sep 2012 19:37:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 27001 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Sep 2012 19:37:52 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS 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; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 19:37:36 +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 q8BJbalO015511 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 15:37:36 -0400 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-25.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.25]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q8BJbVKo014054 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 11 Sep 2012 15:37:33 -0400 Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 19:37:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Tom Tromey Cc: Siddhesh Poyarekar , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: bitpos expansion patches summary Message-ID: <20120911193730.GA27448@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20120805005350.150e5b74@spoyarek> <20120902181515.GA9913@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120907162158.0aee8e85@spoyarek> <20120911190421.GA26399@host2.jankratochvil.net> <87r4q88ipd.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87r4q88ipd.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> 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: 2012-09/txt/msg00177.txt.bz2 On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 21:26:06 +0200, Tom Tromey wrote: > >>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil writes: > > Jan> Additionally I am pretty sure the codebase will get broken soon > Jan> again as it is common GDB practice to use 'int' for every length > Jan> and I do not review very every check-in. So it would be nice to > Jan> possibly be able to do such incremental re-checks in the future; > Jan> although I am not sure it will be done. > > Perhaps you could post something here describing your intended rules. Yes, I will try to make some summary for further reviews. > It could be part of patch review. That obviously won't catch > everything, but we can make an effort at least. Yes, it should be. > Jan> Also IMO (any feedback from other maintainers?) we need full > Jan> annotation of the patch file as with such large number of change > Jan> there is not clear which changes are justified and whether there > Jan> are no excessive changes. > Jan> http://people.redhat.com/jkratoch/bitpos3.patch > Jan> (lines starting with 'x') > > Ouch, 168 hits. > > I guess I'm not really sure what you mean by a full annotation. $ wget -q -O - http://people.redhat.com/jkratoch/bitpos3.patch|perl -lne '$pn=/^[+](?![+][+] )/;(/^x/?$done:$missing)++ if $p&&!$pn;$p=$pn;END{print "done=$done,missing=$missing";}' done=120,missing=574 I have annotated 120 changes but still 574 changes need to be annotated. (A few of them were commented by a suggestion for their removal etc.) This case I call 'done', annotated: /* Append a trace_quick instruction to EXPR, to record N bytes. */ -extern void ax_trace_quick (struct agent_expr *EXPR, int N); +extern void ax_trace_quick (struct agent_expr *EXPR, LONGEST N); xFIXED(Expand N to LONGEST): (ax-gdb.c:516): FUNC(ax_trace_quick): (ULONGEST to int) [(type)->length] This case I call 'missing', not yet annotated: long reg_r0, reg_r1, reg_r2; - int total_len = 0; + LONGEST total_len = 0; enum bfin_abi abi = bfin_abi (gdbarch); Thanks, Jan