Re: [PATCH]: C++ mangling patch that is about to be committed

[Elena Zannoni <ezannoni at cygnus dot com>]

Kevin Buettner writes:
 > On Oct 10, 11:55am, Daniel Berlin wrote:
 > 
 > > Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@cygnus.com> writes:
 > >
 > > > BTW, I thought
 > > > we agreed to leave the do--while construct in the
 > > > SYMBOL_INIT_DEMANGLED_NAME macro.
 > > I'd rather not.
 > > It's not used in if statements, and *never* should be.
 > > The argument that someone, someday, might want to, just isn't
 > > convincing, because they shouldn't.
 > 
 > Daniel,
 > 
 > This is really not the way to handle this kind of change.  Elena is
 > right.  The consensus was to leave the ``do ...  while (0)'' construct
 > in the SYMBOL_INIT_DEMANGLED_NAME macro.  I believe that turning it
 > into a proper function was also discussed and is regarded as a viable,
 > perhaps even superior, alternative.
 > 

Yes. That is what I remember as well.

See: 
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2000-08/msg00202.html


Elena

 > I know that you don't like the do ... while (0) construct, but it is
 > not right for you to try to sneak changes eliminating it past the
 > maintainer multiple times, particularly when you agreed to leave it
 > in.
 > 
 > Kevin
 >