From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-30695-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 24412 invoked by alias); 16 Feb 2004 09:28:59 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 24396 invoked from network); 16 Feb 2004 09:28:57 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO aragorn.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.23)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Feb 2004 09:28:57 -0000
Received: from zaretski (pns03-205-225.inter.net.il [80.230.205.225])
	by aragorn.inter.net.il (MOS 3.4.4-GR)
	with ESMTP id CMH50531;
	Mon, 16 Feb 2004 11:28:51 +0200 (IST)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:28:00 -0000
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@elta.co.il>
To: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
Message-Id: <3405-Mon16Feb2004112915+0200-eliz@elta.co.il>
CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
In-reply-to: <402FC215.3020906@gnu.org> (message from Andrew Cagney on Sun, 15
	Feb 2004 14:01:41 -0500)
Subject: Re: [rfa:doco] mention gdbarch_obstack_zalloc in per-module data
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@elta.co.il>
References:  <402FC215.3020906@gnu.org>
X-SW-Source: 2004-02/txt/msg00395.txt.bz2

> Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 14:01:41 -0500
> From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
> 
> Per my e-mail to markk, this updates the doco to reflect current reality.
> 
> ok?

Yes, but...

> +Any memory required by the @var{init} function should be allocated using
> +@var{gdbarch_obstack_zalloc}.

`gdbarch_obstack_zalloc' is not a parameter, but a true literal
symbol, so it should be in @code, not in @var.

>  @deftypefun void set_gdbarch_data (struct gdbarch *@var{gdbarch}, struct gdbarch_data *handle, void *@var{pointer})

`handle' should be in @var here, I think.

> +Set the uninitialized (NULL) data-pointer corresponding to @var{handle}
> +to the non-NULL @var{pointer} value.

Both `NULL's should be in @code.

Also, is it guaranteed that uninitialized pointers have a NULL value?
In general, that's not true, but perhaps in the context of gdbarch it
is, I just don't know.

Thanks.