From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21391 invoked by alias); 13 Jun 2009 03:47:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 21379 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Jun 2009 03:47:14 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from fencepost.gnu.org (HELO fencepost.gnu.org) (140.186.70.10) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 13 Jun 2009 03:47:08 +0000 Received: from eliz by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1MFKCv-000806-VP; Fri, 12 Jun 2009 23:47:05 -0400 From: Eli Zaretskii To: Pedro Alves CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <200906121943.08246.pedro@codesourcery.com> (message from Pedro Alves on Fri, 12 Jun 2009 19:43:07 +0100) Subject: Re: [commit] cleanup stale exec.{h|c} xfer_memory comments. Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <200906121943.08246.pedro@codesourcery.com> Message-Id: Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 03:47:00 -0000 X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2009-06/txt/msg00349.txt.bz2 > From: Pedro Alves > Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 19:43:07 +0100 > > The comment describing section_table_xfer_memory_partial is actually > still describing the old xfer_memory. This removes that stale > description, and adjusts the description in the header a bit better > to current reality. Is the convention to describe functions in headers? That's reasonable for data structures, but we have a lot of functions documented right before their source, not in the headers. I find the documentation in the .c files easier to use, because you don't need to consult another file. This is C, not C++, so the interface and the implementation are not separated.