This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: PATCH: minor cleanup to dwarf2read.c
> I meant something like this:
>>
>> /* The while loop below was originally this:
>>
>> while ((unsigned int) (info_ptr - dwarf_info_buffer)
>> ((info_ptr - dwarf_info_buffer) % 4) < dwarf_info_size)
>>
>> This seems to be trying to round info_ptr up to the next
>> four-byte boundary, but that's not what it actually did. If we
>> discover the problem the old code was really trying to address,
>> we can fix it properly. */
>>
>
>
> Right. While I understand (and completely agree with) the principle
> that explanatory comments belong in the code and not in the ChangeLog
> entry, in this case, I think no comment is necessary. In fact,
> something like the above would (I believe) inhibit understanding of
> the code, because it suggests that a perfectly straightforward loop is
> actually doing something odd and subtle.
Here I think Eli's comments are correct and important.
There should be a comment explaining what the code was and why it was
reverted. Only that way can you ensure that a later (or even the
original) party doesn't come through and revert the reverted.
enjoy,
Andrew