From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26840 invoked by alias); 29 Sep 2005 03:34:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 26807 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Sep 2005 03:34:35 -0000 Received: from nitzan.inter.net.il (HELO nitzan.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.20) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 03:34:35 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-46-231.inter.net.il [80.230.46.231]) by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.6.5-GR) with ESMTP id BOC32977 (AUTH halo1); Thu, 29 Sep 2005 06:34:28 +0300 (IDT) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 03:34:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Wu Zhou CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: (message from Wu Zhou on Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:14:15 +0800 (CST)) Subject: Re: [RFC] Decimal Floating Point support for GDB (Part 1: patch) Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: X-SW-Source: 2005-09/txt/msg00286.txt.bz2 > Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:14:15 +0800 (CST) > From: Wu Zhou > cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > > 1. If this patch is accepted, do we also need any document? IMO, maybe > gdb user manual needed to be updated to reflect this feature. I'm not sure; the similar "1234.565f" feature is not documented anywhere. I guess the idea is that a programmer in the C language should know about this C feature, and GDB just supports the C language by accepting its syntax for numbers. Isn't the same true for your additions, i.e., isn't "1234.56df" going to be a valid C number syntax? > What about gdb internal? Do we need to update that too? gdbint.texinfo should have a description of language-specific files, what they do and how to build one for a new language. One minor issue that should be part of that description is the number syntax. I'd be thrilled to see such a description added to gdbint, but since there's no such description now, I don't feel I can ask you to write a tiny addition to a non-existent chapter. But if you can find time to write a full description of the C expression syntax support, I'd gratefully review it. > 2. As you might know, dfp for gcc is also under development. And my patch > depends on the availablity of that? How did gdb handle this kind of > situation before? Did we need to wait until dfp is ready for gcc? There's no need to wait, IMHO, since this feature in GDB will not cause any harm unless and until GDB sees some program whose DWARF info includes these special tags.