This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Function definition comments [was Re: [RFA] Delayed physnames, revisited]
- From: Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>
- To: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman at br dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>, Keith Seitz <keiths at redhat dot com>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 11:04:40 -0700
- Subject: Function definition comments [was Re: [RFA] Delayed physnames, revisited]
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Thiago Jung Bauermann
<bauerman@br.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 16:25 -0700, Doug Evans wrote:
>> Not to nitpick or anything,
>> Well, yes to nitpick ... :-)
>>
>> Folks are great at enforcing things like putting a space after the
>> function name in a function call, but not so good at enforcing having
>> a blank line between a function's comment and definition.
>
> I asked what was the convention regarding that a long time ago and the
> answer was something like "there's no defined convention"...
Huh.
It is discussed in gdbint.texinfo, @subsection Comments:
Put a blank line between the block comments preceding function or
variable definitions, and the definition itself.
I don't have a strong opinion on variable definitions, so I haven't
been pushing for that.
It doesn't mention multi-line type definitions, I would *like* to have
a blank line between their comment and definition too, but I'm happy
to leave that as a separate issue. :-)