From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19815 invoked by alias); 19 Apr 2004 12:42:43 -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 19594 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2004 12:42:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Apr 2004 12:42:40 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3JCgeJY031756 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 08:42:40 -0400 Received: from zenia.home.redhat.com (porkchop.devel.redhat.com [172.16.58.2]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i3J6pej01188; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 02:51:40 -0400 To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] New dwarf2_attribute_true_p function in dwarf2read.c (take 2) References: <20040416212108.GJ22414@gnat.com> From: Jim Blandy Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:42:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20040416212108.GJ22414@gnat.com> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2004-04/txt/msg00419.txt.bz2 Joel Brobecker writes: > Hello, > > based on some comments made by Daniel in: > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2004-04/msg00352.html > > here is a new version of the patch. This time, I only check the flag > for the DW_AT_declaration attribute. I also took this opportunity to > rework a bit the comments. It sounds like better English to me, this > time (any suggestion always welcome, btw). > > 2004-04-16 Joel Brobecker > > * dwarf2read.c (dwarf2_attribute_true_p): New function. > (die_is_declaration): Use the function above. Add some comments. > > Tested on x86-linux, no regression. > > OK to apply? I'd like the comment for dwarf2_attribute_true_p to specifically say that it's meant for use with attributes with DW_FORM_flag values. (Trying to read more carefully this time...) Looks okay, otherwise.