From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24855 invoked by alias); 8 Oct 2007 20:23:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 24837 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Oct 2007 20:23:26 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nitzan.inter.net.il (HELO nitzan.inter.net.il) (213.8.233.22) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 08 Oct 2007 20:23:16 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([81.5.58.6]) by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3a-GA) with ESMTP id HZD98479 (AUTH halo1); Mon, 8 Oct 2007 22:20:23 +0200 (IST) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 23:17:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: "Ulrich Weigand" CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <200710081119.l98BJalB008158@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> (uweigand@de.ibm.com) Subject: Re: [rfc/rft] [3/3] Remove stabs target macros: SOFUN_ADDRESS_MAYBE_MISSING Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <200710081119.l98BJalB008158@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> 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: 2007-10/txt/msg00180.txt.bz2 > Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 13:19:36 +0200 (CEST) > From: "Ulrich Weigand" > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > > . Please put the function prototypes where you describe them. For > > example: > > > > > -@item SOFUN_ADDRESS_MAYBE_MISSING > > > -@findex SOFUN_ADDRESS_MAYBE_MISSING > > > +@item int gdbarch_sofun_address_maybe_missing > > > +@findex gdbarch_sofun_address_maybe_missing > > > > The old SOFUN_ADDRESS_MAYBE_MISSING was a macro without arguments, but > > the new gdbarch_sofun_address_maybe_missing is a function that accepts > > arguments. The @item line should show the full prototype of the > > function, including the type(s) of its argument(s). > > Well, the sofun_address_maybe_missing gdbarch entry is of type "v", > i.e. it is a simple variable of type "int", not a function. Okay, that means my example was chosen wrongly (but please do state somewhere that this is a variable). However, IIRC you have other changes where a macro is replaced with a function, but arguments of that function are not shown, and that's what I'd like you to fix. A reader of the manual should not need to consult sources to understand how to define such a function. > I guess the question is, what is the entity that the documentation > should specify for gdbarch entries: > > - the gdbarch_... accessor function > or > - the argument passed to the set_gdbarch_... routine Whatever replaced the old macro should be documented in its stead. I thought you replaced macros with functions, but maybe I misunderstood. > > . Some of the changes were too mechanical: replacing a macro with a > > function sometimes needs more elaborate changes in the text to > > avoid unclear or incorrect wording: > > This is because I was describing a boolean "int" value, not a > function. I think I saw such problems with functions as well. But if you state clearly which ones are variables, I'll be glad to review the patch again. Thanks.