This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [patch] change knr function definitions in ada-lang.c, ada-typeprint.c, ada-valprint.c
- From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at gnat dot com>
- To: Aidan Skinner <aidan at velvet dot net>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 23:41:27 -0700
- Subject: Re: [patch] change knr function definitions in ada-lang.c, ada-typeprint.c, ada-valprint.c
- References: <20020725021316.C10346@velvet.net>
Aidan,
> 2002-07-24 Aidan Skinner <aidan@velvet.net>
>
> * ada-lang.c: Change k&r style function definitions to prototyped
> form.
> * ada-typeprint.c: Change k&r style function definitions to prototyped
> form.
> * ada-valprint.c: Change k&r style function definitions to prototyped
> form.
I have a few minor comments, and I think I have also found a couple of
little ooopsies.
| + value_from_contents_and_address (struct type* type, char* valaddr, CORE_ADDR address)
This line is more than 80 characters long. I don't know if this is a
requirement in the GDB coding standards (did not find any mention of
it in the GDB internal documentation), but I personally prefer it when
long lines are broken up. Is there a consensus on this topic?
Same comment for the following functions:
[in ada-lang.c]
- ada_update_initial_language
- ada_lookup_struct_elt_type
- can_discrim_bound
- ada_value_ptr_subscript
- ada_array_bound_from_type
- ada_resolve_subexp
- ada_convert_actuals
- ada_lookup_partial_symbol
- add_symbols_from_enclosing_procs
- ada_lookup_symbol
[in ada-typeprint.c]
- ada_typedef_print
- print_range_bound
- print_dynamic_range_bound
- print_array_type
- print_choices
- print_record_type
| +ada_lookup_partial_symbol (struct partial_symtab *pst, const char *name, int global, namespace_enumnamespace, int wild)
There is a space missing between namespace_enum and namespace.
| -ada_array_element_type (type, nindices)
| - struct type* type;
| - int nindices;
| +ada_array_element_type (struct btype* type, int nindices)
Is the change from "struct type" to "struct btype" intended?
--
Joel