This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [rfc/rft] [3/3] Remove stabs target macros: SOFUN_ADDRESS_MAYBE_MISSING
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: "Ulrich Weigand" <uweigand at de dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 09:16:35 +0200
- Subject: Re: [rfc/rft] [3/3] Remove stabs target macros: SOFUN_ADDRESS_MAYBE_MISSING
- References: <200710051806.l95I6K3k030029@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 20:06:20 +0200 (CEST)
> From: "Ulrich Weigand" <uweigand@de.ibm.com>
>
> this removes the SOFUN_ADDRESS_MAYBE_MISSING target macro. There are
> two main parts to this:
>
> - struct minimal_symbol used to have the member "filename" present
> only when SOFUN_ADDRESS_MAYBE_MISSING was true. The patch changes
> this to make the member always available. Code used to initialize
> and use those filenames is now also enabled unconditionally. (This
> should not actually change the behaviour of GDB on any target.)
>
> - Instead of the SOFUN_ADDRESS_MAYBE_MISSING macro, a new gdbarch
> variable gdbarch_sofun_address_maybe_missing is introduces. All
> places where GDB behaviour depended on SOFUN_ADDRESS_MAYBE_MISSING
> now look at that gdbarch variable instead.
Thanks.
> doc/ChangeLog:
>
> * gdbint.texinfo: Document gdbarch_sofun_address_maybe_missing
> instead of SOFUN_ADDRESS_MAYBE_MISSING.
This part is almost okay; I have a few minor comments:
. The ChangeLog entry needs to state the name(s) of the node(s) where
you make the changes (in parens, as if they were names of
functions).
. Please put the function prototypes where you describe them. For
example:
> -@item SOFUN_ADDRESS_MAYBE_MISSING
> -@findex SOFUN_ADDRESS_MAYBE_MISSING
> +@item int gdbarch_sofun_address_maybe_missing
> +@findex gdbarch_sofun_address_maybe_missing
The old SOFUN_ADDRESS_MAYBE_MISSING was a macro without arguments, but
the new gdbarch_sofun_address_maybe_missing is a function that accepts
arguments. The @item line should show the full prototype of the
function, including the type(s) of its argument(s).
. Some of the changes were too mechanical: replacing a macro with a
function sometimes needs more elaborate changes in the text to
avoid unclear or incorrect wording:
> -@code{SOFUN_ADDRESS_MAYBE_MISSING} indicates that a particular set of
> +@code{gdbarch_sofun_address_maybe_missing} indicates that a particular set of
A function cannot _indicate_ anything, it can return a value that
indicates something. (The old text was correct because the macro was
used in an #ifdef at compile time.)
> -@code{SOFUN_ADDRESS_MAYBE_MISSING} means two things:
> +@code{gdbarch_sofun_address_maybe_missing} means two things:
Again, a function cannot _mean_ anything; please rephrase.