This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [patch] Remove BITS_BIG_ENDIAN from defs.h
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Markus Deuling <deuling at de dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: uweigand at de dot ibm dot com, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, drow at false dot org
- Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 20:43:19 +0200
- Subject: Re: [patch] Remove BITS_BIG_ENDIAN from defs.h
- References: <200801152101.m0FL12x2012798@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> <478D9CB1.3060905@de.ibm.com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 06:57:05 +0100
> From: Markus Deuling <deuling@de.ibm.com>
> CC: GDB Patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>,
> Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
>
> Eli, is the documentation ok like this ?
I have a few comments:
> ChangeLog Doc:
>
> * gdbint.texinfo (BITS_BIG_ENDIAN): Rewrite to match
> gdbarch_bits_big_endian.
Actually, this should say something like:
* gdbint.texinfo (Target Conditionals): Replace the
description of BITS_BIG_ENDIAN with a description of
gdbarch_bits_big_endian.
Note that the text in parens is the name of the node in which you make
the change.
> +@item gdbarch_bits_big_endian (@var{gdbarch})
> +@findex gdbarch_bits_big_endian
> +Set this if the numbering of bits in the targets does @strong{not} match the
"Set this" isn't right, because you don't "set" a function. I think
it's better to say "Define this to return non-zero it bits are
numbered in the big-endian order (i.e., the rightmost bit has the
largest number), zero otherwise."
Btw, should we also document set_gdbarch_bits_big_endian?