This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH 4/5] add gcc/gdb interface files
- From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- To: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 06:52:05 -0600
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] add gcc/gdb interface files
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1400254001-12038-1-git-send-email-tromey at redhat dot com> <1400254001-12038-5-git-send-email-tromey at redhat dot com>
On 05/16/14 09:26, Tom Tromey wrote:
2014-05-16 Phil Muldoon <email@example.com>
Jan Kratochvil <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Tom Tromey <email@example.com>
* gcc-c-fe.def: New file.
* gcc-c-interface.h: New file.
* gcc-interface.h: New file.
+GCC_METHOD7 (gcc_decl, build_decl,
+ const char */* name */,
+ enum gcc_c_symbol_kind /* sym_kind */,
+ gcc_type /* sym_type */,
+ const char */* substitution_name */,
+ gcc_address /* address */,
+ const char */* filename */,
+ unsigned int /* line_number */)
I must say that I hate the embedded comments in the signatures.
Especially when you end up with something like:
const char */* name */,
My brain just doesn't parse it.
const char * /* name */
is marginally better, but I still don't like it.
const char *, /* name */
Parses better as long as every argument is on a separate line. But I
still don't like it...
I'm curious how others feel about this.
All these files say they're part of GDB, not sure if that was
intentional. Obviously a nit.
Otherwise it's pretty reasonable. If we could come up with a better way
to handle the signatures, then I think this part is good to go.