From: nick clifton <nickc@redhat.com>
To: Pierre Muller <pierre.muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr>,
"'Pedro Alves'" <palves@redhat.com>,
"'asmwarrior'" <asmwarrior@gmail.com>
Cc: "'GDB Development'" <gdb@sourceware.org>,
"'Binutils Development'" <binutils@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC-v2] BFD MinGW/Cygwin build error in bfd/peiXXgen.c
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 12:41:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <52B2E8C4.3080208@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <006c01cefcaf$bec215b0$3c464110$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr>
Hi Pierre,
> 2) In GDB coding rules, we are not allowed to mix code and declaration.
> The declaration of res after handling the ! is_name part
> does not follow this rule.
> Isn't that rule also used for Binutils project?
Doh - this is my bad. The rule *is* followed in the Binutils project
and I should have caught this before checking in the patch.
I blame the GCC project - ever since they switched over to using C++ I
have been developing "bad" C coding habits.
> I moved the declaration of astring, alen, bstring and blen to
> the start of the function. It does introduce a penalty, in the sense that
> those variables are set even though this is not useful if is_name is false.
I do not see this as a problem. I am much more interested in clean code
than in highly optimized, but harder to read code.
> Another silly coding style question: Should there by a space
> between the address operator "&" and the variable or expression following?
*sigh* There is no strict rule on this subject. Most people omit the
space, I include it. I feel that since we separate other operators from
their arguments we should do the same with &. I feel the same way about
the asterisk operator too, but not many people agree with me on that one
either.
> 3) I was wondering why the Windows case started at astring + 2,
> but I couldn't find any valid reason, so that I changed it to
> compare the strings from the first position.
Doh - I was confused by the length field which I thought was included in
my string pointer.
> Finally, I also have a question regarding the codepage field.
> According to Windows PE resources can use any codepage.
> Is the new code restricted to UNICODE only?
> If not, shouldn't the rsrc_cmp code also depend on whether
> 16-bit Windows UNICODE is used or any other page code?
I have no idea. :-( I am not an expert on this subject. According to
the "Microsoft Portable Executable and Common Object File Format
Specification Revision 8.3 â February 6, 2013" which has been my guide
for this work, the codepage field is:
The code page that is used to decode code point values
within the resource data. Typically, the code page would be
the Unicode code page.
But Resource Directory Strings are:
Offset Size Field Description
0 2 Length The size of the string, not including length
field itself.
2 variable Unicode The variable-length Unicode string data,
String word-aligned.
Ie - the strings are explicitly encoded in Unicode. I think that the
codepage field in a resource entry only applies to non-resource-string data.
> 2013-12-19 Pierre Muller <muller@sourceware.org>
>
> peXXigen.c (u16_mbtouc): Avoid unused function warning by excluding if
> __CYGWIN__ or __MINGW32__ macro is defined.
> (rsrc_cmp): Fix Windows host version and version without wchar header.
> [__CYGWIN__, __MINGW32__]: Introduce rsrccmp macro.
Thanks - I have applied this patch.
Cheers
Nick
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-12-19 12:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-12-18 9:54 GDB MinGW build error: implicit declaration of function 'wcsncasecmp' asmwarrior
2013-12-18 9:58 ` asmwarrior
2013-12-18 10:06 ` BFD " Pedro Alves
2013-12-18 12:50 ` asmwarrior
2013-12-18 15:47 ` Eli Zaretskii
2013-12-18 13:03 ` [RFC] BFD MinGW/Cygwin build error in bfd/peiXXgen.c Pierre Muller
2013-12-18 17:52 ` nick clifton
2013-12-19 11:45 ` [RFC-v2] " Pierre Muller
2013-12-19 12:41 ` nick clifton [this message]
2013-12-19 13:02 ` Mark Kettenis
2013-12-19 13:18 ` Pierre Muller
2013-12-19 15:13 ` nick clifton
[not found] ` <52b19d01.22cbc20a.69b0.ffffb29eSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com>
2013-12-18 13:25 ` [RFC] " asmwarrior
[not found] ` <52b19d19.0850420a.7b6a.52dcSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com>
2013-12-18 17:56 ` Pedro Alves
2013-12-19 11:15 ` nick clifton
2013-12-18 15:35 ` GDB MinGW build error: implicit declaration of function 'wcsncasecmp' Eli Zaretskii
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=52B2E8C4.3080208@redhat.com \
--to=nickc@redhat.com \
--cc=asmwarrior@gmail.com \
--cc=binutils@sourceware.org \
--cc=gdb@sourceware.org \
--cc=palves@redhat.com \
--cc=pierre.muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox