From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jim Blandy To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: PATCH: minor cleanup to dwarf2read.c Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 08:33:00 -0000 Message-id: References: X-SW-Source: 2001-07/msg00042.html Eli Zaretskii 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.