Re: PATCH: minor cleanup to dwarf2read.c

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>]

> I meant something like this:
>> 
>> /* The while loop below was originally this:
>> 
>> while ((unsigned int) (info_ptr - dwarf_info_buffer)
>> ((info_ptr - dwarf_info_buffer) % 4) < dwarf_info_size)
>> 
>> This seems to be trying to round info_ptr up to the next 
>> four-byte boundary, but that's not what it actually did.  If we 
>> discover the problem the old code was really trying to address, 
>> we can fix it properly.  */
>> 
> 
> 
> Right.  While I understand (and completely agree with) the principle
> that explanatory comments belong in the code and not in the ChangeLog
> entry, in this case, I think no comment is necessary.  In fact,
> something like the above would (I believe) inhibit understanding of
> the code, because it suggests that a perfectly straightforward loop is
> actually doing something odd and subtle.


Here I think Eli's comments are correct and important.
There should be a comment explaining what the code was and why it was 
reverted.  Only that way can you ensure that a later (or even the 
original) party doesn't come through and revert the reverted.

enjoy,
	Andrew