This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 13/16] Drop non-prototype C function header variants: 'list' test case
- From: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- To: Andreas Arnez <arnez at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 15:18:19 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/16] Drop non-prototype C function header variants: 'list' test case
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1414597859-12523-1-git-send-email-arnez at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <1414598446-13831-13-git-send-email-arnez at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <5463538A dot 4090508 at redhat dot com> <87sihoxxwf dot fsf at br87z6lw dot de dot ibm dot com>
On 11/12/2014 03:05 PM, Andreas Arnez wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12 2014, Pedro Alves wrote:
>
>> On 10/29/2014 04:00 PM, Andreas Arnez wrote:
>>> Remove old-style function header variants from list0.h and list1.c.
>>> Fill the removed lines with comments or empty lines, such that the
>>> line numbering is undisturbed.
>>
>> Why is it important that the line numbering is undisturbed?
>
> Changes to the line numbering would require heavy adjustments to
> list.exp. Many line numbers are hard-coded, as well as a fair amount of
> knowledge about the source code in and around certain lines. Thus the
> dependency on the line numbering can not be eliminated so easily here,
> and it may not even be a useful goal for a "list" test case. Another
> option might be to adjust the literal line numbers in list.exp, but even
> that is not as straightforward as it may seem, since the test case
> expects certain source lines to be exactly n lines apart.
>
> I'll add the above explanation to the commit message, OK?
OK.
Thanks,
Pedro Alves