From: Gary Benson <gbenson@redhat.com>
To: Doug Evans <dje@google.com>
Cc: gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>,
Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9 v7] Introduce common-regcache.h
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 09:45:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140912094526.GA17822@blade.nx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CADPb22SvNvFAXoSQ_HkyeWTw2TfYPmesamsAfDO-tjdH4Mjx1A@mail.gmail.com>
Doug Evans wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 4:02 AM, Gary Benson <gbenson@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Doug Evans wrote:
> > > Gary Benson writes:
> > > > +/* Return the register cache associated with the thread specified
> > > > + by PTID. This function must be provided by the client. */
> > >
> > > Can you add a comment here explaining the ownership of the
> > > memory object returned? E.g., is it cached "internally" to
> > > the function so that the caller doesn't have to free it?
> >
> > That seems odd. We don't document other similar functions this
> > way: I'm thinking GDB's get_current_arch, current_inferior,
> > target_gdbarch, or gdbserver's current_process,
> > current_target_desc. It seems the pattern is to note if the
> > caller must free the object and to remain quiet otherwise.
>
> Yeah, but I never liked such things being implicit. I can't trust a
> missing "caller must free" as being intentional. [One can equally
> argue the presence of "caller must free" (or "not free") isn't
> necessarily trustable, but such things don't change that often.]
>
> With a name like "get_current_foo", the "current" makes things less
> implicit (at least to me).
>
> If we were using c++ then object ownership can (often, though not
> always) be more clearly expressed and then such things can be more
> reasonably left as being implicit in comments. But we don't have
> that so if we're going to be cleaning things up, and maybe even
> paying a little attention to API design, I figure IWBN to have
> things be clearer than they are today.
>
> [Plus I get bitten time and again by taking gdb's existing practice
> as something we actually want to keep. :-)]
>
> > How about I change the comment to "Return _a_pointer_to_ the
> > register cache..."? (underlines for emphasis here).
>
> If one was going to add emphasis, I'd emphasize _the_. :-)
I tried to figure out how to succinctly write what you're asking me
to here but I'm stuck. Is there a function documented in this way
in GDB I can use as an example?
In the interests of keeping things moving I've pushed the patch with
this comment:
Return a pointer to the register cache associated with the
thread specified by PTID. This function must be provided by
the client.
Thanks,
Gary
--
http://gbenson.net/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-09-12 9:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 53+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-08-29 13:57 [PATCH 0/9 v7] Common code cleanups Gary Benson
2014-08-29 13:51 ` [PATCH 1/9 v7] Introduce show_debug_regs Gary Benson
2014-09-10 10:09 ` Pedro Alves
2014-08-29 13:51 ` [PATCH 3/9 v7] Introduce target_{stop,continue}_ptid Gary Benson
2014-09-10 10:39 ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-10 17:45 ` Doug Evans
2014-09-11 10:27 ` Gary Benson
2014-09-12 11:53 ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-12 16:53 ` Doug Evans
2014-09-12 17:20 ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-12 17:38 ` Doug Evans
2014-09-12 17:41 ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-12 18:08 ` Doug Evans
2014-09-12 18:19 ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-12 18:29 ` Doug Evans
2014-09-15 10:07 ` Gary Benson
2014-09-15 16:00 ` Doug Evans
2014-09-15 18:34 ` Doug Evans
2014-09-16 9:49 ` Gary Benson
2014-09-16 10:45 ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-16 10:36 ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-16 21:18 ` Doug Evans
2014-09-17 11:30 ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-17 18:20 ` Doug Evans
2014-09-19 15:51 ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-19 20:47 ` Doug Evans
2014-09-16 9:55 ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-12 12:00 ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-12 17:10 ` Doug Evans
2014-08-29 13:51 ` [PATCH 4/9 v7] Introduce target/symbol.h Gary Benson
2014-09-10 11:59 ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-11 10:47 ` Gary Benson
2014-08-29 13:51 ` [PATCH 2/9 v7] Introduce target/target.h Gary Benson
2014-09-10 10:17 ` Pedro Alves
2014-08-29 13:52 ` [PATCH 7/9 v7] Remove GDBSERVER uses from linux-btrace.c Gary Benson
2014-09-10 13:12 ` Pedro Alves
2014-08-29 13:52 ` [PATCH 8/9 v7] Remove GDBSERVER uses from i386-dregs.c Gary Benson
2014-09-10 13:15 ` Pedro Alves
2014-08-29 13:59 ` [PATCH 9/9 v7] Remove one GDBSERVER use from linux-waitpid.c Gary Benson
2014-09-10 13:29 ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-12 10:03 ` [PATCH v8] Clarify GDBSERVER use in linux-waitpid.c Gary Benson
2014-09-12 10:05 ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-12 11:09 ` Gary Benson
2014-08-29 14:03 ` [PATCH 5/9 v7] Introduce common-regcache.h Gary Benson
2014-09-10 13:09 ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-10 18:00 ` Doug Evans
2014-09-11 11:02 ` Gary Benson
2014-09-11 17:12 ` Doug Evans
2014-09-12 9:45 ` Gary Benson [this message]
2014-09-12 16:28 ` Doug Evans
2014-08-29 14:46 ` [PATCH 6/9 v7] Include common-defs.h instead of defs.h/server.h in shared code Gary Benson
2014-09-10 13:11 ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-10 22:34 ` [PATCH 0/9 v7] Common code cleanups Doug Evans
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140912094526.GA17822@blade.nx \
--to=gbenson@redhat.com \
--cc=dje@google.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=palves@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox