From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8390 invoked by alias); 11 Dec 2002 21:46:07 -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 8374 invoked from network); 11 Dec 2002 21:46:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO zenia.red-bean.com) (66.244.67.22) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 11 Dec 2002 21:46:05 -0000 Received: from zenia.red-bean.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zenia.red-bean.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id gBBLPx5h007508; Wed, 11 Dec 2002 16:25:59 -0500 Received: (from jimb@localhost) by zenia.red-bean.com (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id gBBLPwij007504; Wed, 11 Dec 2002 16:25:58 -0500 To: ac131313@redhat.com (Andrew Cagney) Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] dwarf2read.c: complain() -> complaint() References: <20021211200706.A87E13C17@localhost.redhat.com> From: Jim Blandy Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 14:15:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20021211200706.A87E13C17@localhost.redhat.com> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2.92 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00375.txt.bz2 ac131313@redhat.com (Andrew Cagney) writes: > > It looks fine to me. > > > > I was uncomfortable with the idea of having to create wrapper > > functions at first --- the idea being that each occurrence of a > > complaint string is its own independent complaint --- but it seems > > like it'll do the right thing by default more often than making people > > create complaint structures. So I'll go with that. > > I'm not sure what you mean. The wrapper function was only suggested > when an identical complaint is being reported from more than one place > in the file. See "complaints.h". I've read complaints.h, and complaints.c. I guess the behavior which would make more sense to me is for complaints with identical message texts to be treated as the same complaint, even if they're made from distinct source locations. That way, the wrapper functions would be unnecessary: you could just complain with the same text in two places, and the identity of the messages would be enough to associate them. As far as comparing format string addresses goes: don't compilers have permission to merge identical strings, when strings are placed in read-only memory? That is, if I write "foo" in two places, can't the compiler make them both point to the same memory? If this is so, then the behavior of the complaints stuff depends on compiler behavior. (Not that that's a very imporant problem.)