This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA 3/8] New port: TI C6x: shared library for dsbt
- From: Pedro Alves <pedro at codesourcery dot com>
- To: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Cc: Yao Qi <yao at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 18:36:31 +0100
- Subject: Re: [RFA 3/8] New port: TI C6x: shared library for dsbt
- References: <4E263849.9080009@codesourcery.com>
On Wednesday 20 July 2011 03:07:05, Yao Qi wrote:
> + error (_("Error reading DSBT exec loadmap\n"));
> + exec_loadmap = NULL;
> + return;
Code after error is unreacheable. More instances of this.
> + LOCAL FUNCTION
> +
> + open_symbol_file_object
> +
> + SYNOPSIS
> +
> + void open_symbol_file_object (void *from_tty)
Any reason to this style (bfd's?) of function comments here? The
GNU coding standards says:
"There is usually no purpose in restating the name of the function in the
comment before it, because the reader can see that for himself. "
> +static CORE_ADDR interp_text_sect_low;
> +static CORE_ADDR interp_text_sect_high;
> +static CORE_ADDR interp_plt_sect_low;
> +static CORE_ADDR interp_plt_sect_high;
It'd be nice if globals were moved to a per-pspace
structure, like solib-svr4.c, for multi-process.
> + function may be freed via a single call to xfree(). */
GNU's coding standards say:
"Please do not write â()â after a function name just to indicate it is a
function. foo () is not a function, it is a function call with no arguments."
(several instances of this)
> + if (0 >= target_read_alloc (¤t_target, TARGET_OBJECT_FDPIC,
> + "exec", (gdb_byte**)&buf))
Problem with the patch split? TARGET_OBJECT_FDPIC isn't defined in
this patch or any of the previous ones.
--
Pedro Alves