This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
RE: [PATCH] gdb_ari.sh cleanup
Hi Joel,
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De?: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org [mailto:gdb-patches-
> owner@sourceware.org] De la part de Joel Brobecker
> Envoyé?: Friday, April 17, 2009 2:19 AM
> À?: Pierre Muller
> Cc?: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> Objet?: Re: [PATCH] gdb_ari.sh cleanup
>
> > I did not handle two macros, because
> > they are unused but are still present in docs:
> > REGISTER_U_ADDR
> > PROCESS_LINENUMBER_HOOK
Yes , please do it as it seems that
at least for REGISTER_U_ADDR, it is not a
node that you can just remove directly.
> Let's just remove them from the documentation. It's a very simple
> change, but let me know if you'd like me to take care of it.
>
> > Miscellaneous questions:
> > 1a) Should the PARAMS rule be moved to code section?
> > 1b) Same question for __FUNCTION__ rule.
> > 1c) Idem for ARGSUSED
>
> Does it really make a difference? If it helps you analyze the results,
> then I'd say go for it.
>
> > 1d) Idem for
Whoops: this was ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED
I will then move all those to ari_code type.
> (name missing?)
>
> > 2) LITTLE_ENDIAN and BIG_ENDIAN still exists in configure,
> > should I still remove the rule?
>
> I don't think so. I don't know what the details are, but I'm wondering
> whether the macros might be defined by the compiler, thus making it
> possible for us to accidently reintroduce this usage again. I'd say,
> let's keep the rule.
OK, I leave these one in.
> > 3) HAVE_VFORK is still present in config.in
> > should I keep the rule or should we remove it from config.in first?
>
> We need to keep the rule. That macro is still used by gdb_vfork.h
> and it is a valid use of that macro. In a way, this is very similar
> to the use of "abort" - only very selected uses are allowed.
OK, same here.
Thanks for the answers,
Pierre Muller
Pascal language support maintainer for GDB