This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Pascal language support patch preparation
At 15:06 02/03/00 +0100, you wrote:
> X-Sender: muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr
> Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 14:32:02 +0100
> From: Pierre Muller <muller@cerbere.u-strasbg.fr>
> Cc: gdb@sourceware.cygnus.com
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> At 14:21 02/03/00 +0100, you wrote:
> > Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 13:41:58 +0100
> > From: Pierre Muller <muller@cerbere.u-strasbg.fr>
> >
> > I want to format my PATCH for pascal extension before submitting
it
> > so I read that I should use GNU indent with -gnu option !
> >
> >Hi Pierre, I do hope that you'll break your patch up in some smaller
> >chunks. IMHO the fact that you sent it as a large chunk, was one of
> >the main reasons why it was ignored last fall.
>
> But adding a new language means at least :
> new files :
> p-lang.h p-lang.c p-valprint.c p-typeprint.c and p-exp.y
> plus the changes needed to make GDB know about pascal language !
> This means a bunch of other changes of course !
>
>Patches to create those new p-* files cannot be broken up of course,
>but your patch also touches a lot of the other GDB files. Breaking
>those patches up in smaller though functionally related chunks makes
>reviewing and applying the patches a lot easier.
>
>I'd advise you to do the following:
>
>1. If you need some tweaks in GDB that do not depend on the Pascal
> support itself, start submitting these ASAP.
I don't think I really have such code !
>2. Then send the new p-* as one single patch.
Alone ? tihs would just leave them unused first !
>3. Then send a patch that adds the code to hook in the GDB support.
OK, here a would have the biggest part of the problems probably
because some of the change are not trivial but I agree that I can probably
splitt those.
For instance a big problem on which I spent a lot of time is to
get GDB to accept the fact the pascal is case insensitive
this required changes in gnu-regex code !!
> > But I tried this on c-lang.h just to see
> > and the result is that the current header file does not conform to
> > indent output !
> >
> >Looks like you're using a different `indent' than was used on the GDB
> >sources. I think, this shows that defining the GDB coding standards
> >in terms of the output of `indent' is not really workable. I've also
> >noticed that `indent' sometime really messes up the output, because it
> >gets confused by certain constructs.
>
> indent --version gives "GNU indent 2.2.5"
> is that not the current version ??
>
>Yes it is, but it isn't the version that was used for reformatting the
>GDB sources. See:
>
> http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/gdb/1999-q3/msg00014.html
This not really very informative on the method that was used to do it !
>for more information.
>
> > So my question is simply should I run indent on my files
> > or should I send them without !
> >
> >I'd say that avoiding gratuitous reformatting is more important than
> >running your changes through `indent'. Thus, make sure that your
> >patches only contains changes for code you really changed, and that
> >these changes correspond to the GNU coding standards.
>
> One of the main problem is that my patches are primarily files
> c-*.* first copied to p-*.* then adapted to reflect pascal instead
> of C, but of course this copy was primarily done on v4.17 ! I
> change after so that it compiled with v4.18, but all the changes
> made in c-*.* since then are not in my pascal files.
>
>The best thing would probably be to port these changes over to the
>p-*.* files.
Of courseit would, but I would like to stress again that I am a
pascal programmer (a bit assembler also) but that I learned C only to be
able to
add pascal to GDB!!!
So I am probably not the best person to do this without errors :(
Pierre Muller
Institut Charles Sadron
6,rue Boussingault
F 67083 STRASBOURG CEDEX (France)
mailto:muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr
Phone : (33)-3-88-41-40-07 Fax : (33)-3-88-41-40-99