This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH]: C++ mangling patch that is about to be committed
Daniel Berlin writes:
> Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > >
> > > Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@cygnus.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > Daniel,
> > > >
> > > > There is an extra change in symtab.h that has nothing to do with the
> > > > changelog. I think that is part of a different patch.
> > > No, I missed the changelog entry for it, stupidly.
> > >
> > > > BTW, I thought
> > > > we agreed to leave the do--while construct in the
> > > > SYMBOL_INIT_DEMANGLED_NAME macro.
> > > I'd rather not.
> > > It's not used in if statements, and *never* should be.
> > > The argument that someone, someday, might want to, just isn't
> > > convincing, because they shouldn't.
> >
> > Umm... Daniel, did you and Elena discuss it?
>
> Elena didn't participate in that discussion, it was held on
> gdb-patches in clear view.
>
And the consensus was that the do--while would stay or the macro would
be changed to a function. So, let's just leave the do--while, and
make the c++ changes you propose to the macro. No need to make it a
function this time around.
> > Overriding her opinion by taking it out of a file
> > that she maintains and creating a new one that you
> > maintain does NOT seem to be in the spirit of
> > maintainership...
> Err, i'm not.
> It's always been in symtab.h
> I don't plan on moving that macro to cp-support.h,.
> What made you think it was being taken out of a file she maintains,
> and moved to one i maintain.
> Elena is the backup maintainer.
> THat's part of the whole problem.
> The maintainer hasn't participated in maintaining the file in a while.
> Like I said, since this stuff isn't in my maintainership, i'm not
> fixing it anymore.
> Someone else can fix it, whether it affects C++ support or not.
> That is what part of being a maintainer is, right? Maintaining?
>
You don't have to fix it. It can stay as it is now.
> It's interesting that you seem to be bashing my plan to move the C++
> support specific things to cp-support.c, out of places they don't
> belong (this is what i'm assuming you think i'm doing when you say
> moving things out of a file someone else maintains, and into one i
> maintain), since nobody maintains them but me, because they are C++ specific.
>
> I'm expected to look at problems related to them, and fix them, rather
> than the person whose maintainership they do fall under, yet I have
> to get the patches approved by other people, since i'm not supposed to
> maintain them. So i'm to maintain them, but not maintain them. Weird.
> Nobody else has fixed this stuff in years, so it's not a matter of me
> just getting to it first.
>
>
Maybe not everybody feels like I do about this, but I believe that
peer review is important. Whether or not I am the maintainer for
something, I always like to post my patches and have other people look
at them. Yes, sometimes it may take a while, because of lack of
coordination among the maintainers, or because the maintainers are
busy, but I think it is very worthwhile.
Unfortunately sometimes there isn't a clear demarcation between areas
of maintainership, often there is overlap. Nothing wrong with
that. Two pairs of eyes should probably do a better job, I would
think.
About moving the c++ stuff out of the symtab related files. Dan, post
your proposed changes when you are ready, and then we can talk more.
Do you think it would be a good idea to have a C++ co/backup
maintainer, if this would make your life easier?
> --Dan
>
>
Elena