This is the mail archive of the gdb@sourceware.cygnus.com mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Proposal: convert function definitions to prototyped form


On Jun 13, 11:09am, Andrew Cagney wrote:

> Kevin Buettner wrote:
> > 
> > As many of you know, I'm in the midst of purging the use of ``PARAMS''
> > in prototyped function declarations from the gdb sources.  After this
> > activity is concluded, I'd like to begin converting function
> > definitions whose parameters are declared using the traditional C
> > style to the ISO C prototyped form.  I.e, I'd like to convert
> > functions of the form
> 
> Kevin,
> 
> Would a fair summary of this be that you've encountered the following
> road blocks:
> 
> 	o	indent.pro
> 
> 		So that indent gives better results

I don't think this is a serious road block.  While it would be nice to
be able to specify an indent.pro file (e.g., "indent --options-file
gdbtypes.pro"), it's not absolutely necessary for the task at hand.

As I noted in my reply to Eric, I already know the complete list of
types which indent has to know about in order to complete the
protoization task.  It is easy to put this list in the script which
does the conversion.  I.e,

	@typelist = qw(ADDR32 B_TYPE ... value_ptr xdrproc_t);
	$indentoptions = '-T ' . join(' -T ', @typelist);

> 	o	a drain of some of the backlog of
> 		patches (pascal I believe is now
> 		going in).
> 
> 		Apple and HP?

I think the patch backlog is the real road block.

However, even for this road block, the only reason for delaying the
protoization activity is to make it easier on the people doing the
patch integration.  Perhaps setting a date for the protoization
activity would help motivate the patch integrators to clear some of
the backlog?

> No one has objected to the principal (well not on gdb-patches :-) and
> the tool would be based on perl rather than the the gcc thing.
> 
> Once those blockages are cleared, it can be scheduled and can go
> through?

I still have a little over a week to go on the PARAMS elimination
activity, so any time after then is good for me.  How does midnight
GMT of Sunday July 9 sound?  That's about four weeks away.  Is that
enough time for the patch integrators to clear the patch backlog?

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]