This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFA: abstract C++ ABI dependencies
- To: Daniel Berlin <dan at cgsoftware dot com>
- Subject: Re: RFA: abstract C++ ABI dependencies
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at is dot elta dot co dot il>
- Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:25:25 +0300 (IDT)
- cc: Jim Blandy <jimb at zwingli dot cygnus dot com>, David Taylor <taylor at candd dot org>, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com, Anthony Green <green at redhat dot com>
On 25 Apr 2001, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> and IMHO, saying
>
> #include <cp-abi.h> /* Include C++ ABI stuff */
>
> is like saying
>
> i++; /* Increment i */
That's not what I suggested to say in the comment.
> > In other words, if there were no reason to have an explanation, why would
> > Jim feel he should provide one on the ChangeLog?
>
> Because nobody else realized those macros were spread out across 2 (or
> was it 3) header files, and had nothing to do with what the header
> file purported to be, except me, because nobody had touched the hard
> core C++ ABI stuff in at least year or so, except me?
Just tell the above in the comment, or put there what Jim suggested to
put in the ChangeLog:
#include "cp-abi.h". These files all use functions now declared there.
> 1. A message explaining why it was done, on the mailing list (done at
> some point in the past), so others understand.
> 2. A short reminder in the ChangeLog, saying why it was done.
I think the comments in the code should explain anything that isn't
obvious from reading the code itself. Mail messages and ChangeLog
entries are not the right place for such information, IMHO.