Re: PATCH: minor cleanup to dwarf2read.c

[Jim Blandy <jimb@zwingli.cygnus.com>]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@is.elta.co.il> writes:

> 
> 
> On 4 Jul 2001, Jim Blandy wrote:
> 
> > If you have:
> > 
> >         foo_buf = malloc (sizeof (*foo_buf) * foo_length);
> > 
> >         for (i = 0; i < foo_length; i++)
> >           ...
> > 
> > you don't put any scary comments around the for statement about the
> > termination conditions, do you?
> 
> 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.