This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH 1/3] change gdbserver to use hashtab: list->table

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 4:27 AM, Yao Qi <> wrote:
>> 2014-01-24  Doug Evans  <>
>>       * inferiors.h (struct inferior_table): Renamed from struct
>>       inferior_list.  All uses updated.
>>       (struct inferior_table_entry): Renamed from struct
>>       inferior_list_entry.  All uses updated.
>>       (add_inferior_to_table): Renamed from add_inferior_to_list.
>>       * inferiors.c (*): Update.
> Do we need entries like this?  Since "All uses updated" is written
> above, probably we don't need these entries.  In gnu coding standards:
> "When you change the calling sequence of a function in a simple
> fashion, and you change all the callers of the function to use the new
> calling sequence, there is no need to make individual entries for all
> the callers that you changed. Just write in the entry for the function
> being called, âAll callers changedâ"

That's a very good question, and the answer is "We haven't agreed on
how to apply that rule from the gnu coding standards."

Some go for listing everything function that is not in the same file
that the originating change was in.
Some go for applying the rule throughout (which is what you're
advocating), regardless of which files are touched.

I prefer the latter, but until we have a clear agreement on how to
write these kinds of entries, I sometimes punt and just go with the
flow.  And that is why I wrote it that way.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]