This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Some code-cleanup
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 14:20:15 +0200, Abhijit Halder wrote:
> --- gdb/parse.c 17 Jun 2011 20:24:22 -0000 1.110
> +++ gdb/parse.c 13 Sep 2011 12:09:19 -0000
> @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@
> along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>. */
>
> /* Parse an expression from text in a string,
> - and return the result as a struct expression pointer.
> + and return the result as a struct expression pointer.
> That structure contains arithmetic operations in reverse polish,
> with constants represented by operations that are followed by special data.
> See expression.h for the details of the format.
This change is missing in the FSF changeLog. (sorry but it is AFAIK a FSF
policy)
> @@ -190,7 +190,7 @@ free_funcalls (void *ignore)
> }
> }
>
> -/* This page contains the functions for adding data to the struct expression
> +/* This page contains the functions for adding data to the struct expression
> being constructed. */
>
> /* Add one element to the end of the expression. */
This change is missing in the FSF changeLog.
> @@ -199,7 +199,7 @@ free_funcalls (void *ignore)
> a register through here. */
>
> void
> -write_exp_elt (union exp_element expelt)
> +write_exp_elt (const union exp_element *expelt)
> {
> if (expout_ptr >= expout_size)
> {
This function should be made `static' as I wrote before.
> @@ -1059,7 +1059,7 @@ prefixify_subexp (struct expression *ine
> }
>
> /* Read an expression from the string *STRINGPTR points to,
> - parse it, and return a pointer to a struct expression that we malloc.
> + parse it, and return a pointer to a struct expression that we malloc.
> Use block BLOCK as the lexical context for variable names;
> if BLOCK is zero, use the block of the selected stack frame.
> Meanwhile, advance *STRINGPTR to point after the expression,
This change is missing in the FSF changeLog.
> --- gdb/parser-defs.h 10 Jan 2011 20:38:49 -0000 1.39
> +++ gdb/parser-defs.h 13 Sep 2011 12:09:19 -0000
> @@ -131,7 +131,7 @@ union type_stack_elt
> extern union type_stack_elt *type_stack;
> extern int type_stack_depth, type_stack_size;
>
> -extern void write_exp_elt (union exp_element);
> +extern void write_exp_elt (const union exp_element *);
>
> extern void write_exp_elt_opcode (enum exp_opcode);
>
This declaration line should be removed completely as I wrote before.
write_exp_elt is not called from any other file so I find updating
a declaration which has no use anyway does not make much sense.
OK with these changes, if you follow the changes.
Thanks,
Jan