On 06/09/2015 11:46 PM, Pierre-Marie de Rodat wrote:
> On 05/29/2015 02:28 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>>> This would look cleaner indeed. It's a big change itself though so if
>>> most consider this as a good idea I don't mind doing it... although it
>>> would be for another commit!
>>
>> I would think it great if someone did that.  :-)
>
> Okay... I may give it a try, then. ;-)

Here it is! 
<https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2015-07/msg00607.html> I just 
rebased my work on non-local references on top of this cleanup and 
performed the changes you asked me to do. Just a question:

>> It'd be great if you could skim over the patch add any missing
>> function intro comments.  You've already done a good job at that,
>> I think only here and there missed it.

What I usually do is to put comments in front of function definitions 
and leave function declarations without them in the header. It's 
generally what I observe in the sources, but since sometimes the 
documentation is in the header file, it happens that I do the same: I 
try to stay consistent with nearby code. ;-) Please tell me if you want 
me to do something different.

Regtested again on x86_64-linux: no regression. Ok to push? Thank you!

-- 
Pierre-Marie de Rodat