From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24513 invoked by alias); 25 Mar 2013 15:18:37 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 24497 invoked by uid 89); 25 Mar 2013 15:18:30 -0000 Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:18:30 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E6AE1C7B9A; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 11:18:28 -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 iYtakerb+AR6; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 11:18:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDEC41C6617; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 11:18:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 17A50C08C3; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 08:18:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 16:58:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, palves@redhat.com, jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, ralf.corsepius@rtems.org, vapier@gentoo.org, joel.sherrill@oarcorp.com Subject: Re: one week to gdb-7.6 release? Message-ID: <20130325151825.GJ5447@adacore.com> References: <20130320160032.GC5447@adacore.com> <83vc8myoyb.fsf@gnu.org> <83ehf64cfs.fsf@gnu.org> <20130323162534.GI5447@adacore.com> <834ng23soj.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <834ng23soj.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SW-Source: 2013-03/txt/msg00936.txt.bz2 > > I think that the standard approach in this case would be to define > > a function in utils.h, and have its implementation in both posix-hdep.c > > and mingw-hdep.c. > > What would the implementation in posix-hdep.c look like? Just return > its argument, xstrdup'ed? That would be a good start indeed. We could possibly think of testing that the argument is an absolute path and then apply an xfullpath on it if not, but we'd be taking a risk of causing a change in behavior. What I would do is add a comment inside the posix implementation that the current use of this function is such that returning a copy of the argument is sufficient. That way, someone finding that the function finally needs to be implemented will understand the history. > > A minor nitpick on coding style: Can you add an empty line between > > the comment documenting a function ands its definition? > > I don't mind, but this style is not uniformly used in the sources. > Quite a few places don't leave that empty line. (I'm accustomed to > the latter, which is why I used that.) I understand where you are coming from. This is based on a discussion we had on this, and we decided to standardize on the former. It really does not matter to me either way, but I try to help us improve our consistency... -- Joel