From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27460 invoked by alias); 20 Aug 2014 08:21:01 -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 27440 invoked by uid 89); 20 Aug 2014 08:21:00 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 08:20:59 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s7K8KrZf010328 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 20 Aug 2014 04:20:54 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s7K8KoZd001088; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 04:20:51 -0400 Message-ID: <53F45A61.1050304@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 08:21:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yao Qi , Will Newton CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Support _Complex in hard-VFP abi References: <1407761487-9251-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <53F34D56.5050705@codesourcery.com> <53F3D349.9080904@redhat.com> <53F41920.8040800@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <53F41920.8040800@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-08/txt/msg00384.txt.bz2 On 08/20/2014 04:42 AM, Yao Qi wrote: > On 08/20/2014 06:44 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: >> This is borderline pedantry, but this looks ugly enough to me that >> I'll speak up in case this ends up being the norm. :-) FWIW, I agree >> with Will here -- I think we should make an exception to the rule >> in the cases where the comment is actually a paste of output, >> multiline code or similar cases. It's kind of like a @smallexample >> region in texinfo, that begs to be rendered on its own block/lines, >> separate from the text around it. > > I am fine with this exception here, but we'd better document it. > > The rule is documented here > https://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/Internals%20GDB-C-Coding-Standards > > Block comments must appear in the following form, with no /*- or */-only lines, and no leading *: > > /* Wait for control to return from inferior to debugger. If inferior > gets a signal, we may decide to start it up again instead of > returning. That is why there is a loop in this function. When > this function actually returns it means the inferior should be left > stopped and GDB should read more commands. */ > > I propose to add the following words after this paragraph above, > > "Exceptionally, */ can be put at a separate line if the comment is ended > with an example, an output or a code snippet: > > /* Arguments of complex T where T is one of the types float or > double get treated as if they are implemented as: > > struct complexT > { > T real; > T imag; > }; > > */" > That's excellent, IMO. > The patch below updates the comments I've seen in current code base. > Looks great to me. Thanks, Pedro Alves