This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFC patch mi-cmds.c table format (pedantic)
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at elta dot co dot il>
- To: Jason Molenda <jmolenda at apple dot com>
- Cc: cagney at gnu dot org, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: 18 Mar 2004 07:54:28 +0200
- Subject: Re: RFC patch mi-cmds.c table format (pedantic)
- References: <6994FFF8-786D-11D8-9229-000393D457E2@apple.com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at elta dot co dot il>
> From: Jason Molenda <jmolenda@apple.com>
> Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 15:47:12 -0800
>
> As you can see here, the use of 0 vs NULL is inconsistent, and the=20
> spacing on the close parens on the last arg is inconsistent. The=20
> implied initialization of 0 is also used in many places. All of this=20
> is valid, but it could be a bit more consistent. So instead of
>
> - { "break-insert", { NULL, 0 }, 0, mi_cmd_break_insert},
> + { "break-insert", { NULL, 0 }, NULL, mi_cmd_break_insert},
>
> - { "exec-step", { NULL, 0 }, mi_cmd_exec_step},
> + { "exec-step", { NULL, 0 }, mi_cmd_exec_step, NULL},
>
> - { NULL, }
> + { NULL, { NULL, 0 }, NULL, NULL}
Don't these changes require changes to the GDB/MI documentation in
gdb.texinfo? IIRC, there are examples there to what each command
outputs.