This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
RE: Patch to propagate GDB's knowledge of the executing state to frontend
- From: "Anwar, Ali" <Ali_Anwar at mentor dot com>
- To: "dje at google dot com" <dje at google dot com>
- Cc: "Qi, Yao" <Yao_Qi at mentor dot com>, "gdb-patches at sourceware dot org" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 19:30:53 +0000
- Subject: RE: Patch to propagate GDB's knowledge of the executing state to frontend
- References: <50891E05.7050509@codesourcery.com> <508F719C.2080409@codesourcery.com> <20627.61842.606081.697743@ruffy2.mtv.corp.google.com>,<50941519.6010005@codesourcery.com>
Ping... OK to commit?
Regards,
-Ali
________________________________________
From: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org [gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org] on behalf of Anwar, Ali
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 11:46 PM
To: dje@google.com
Cc: Qi, Yao; gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: Patch to propagate GDB's knowledge of the executing state to frontend
On 11/02/2012 09:15 PM, dje@google.com wrote:
> Yao Qi writes:
> > On 10/25/2012 07:09 PM, ali_anwar wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > @@ -1,3 +1,13 @@
> > > +2012-10-25 Ali Anwar<ali_anwar@codesourcery.com>
> > > +
> > > + * infrun.c (handle_inferior_event_stub, regcache_dup_stub):
> > > + New functions.
> > > + (normal_stop): Change to propagate GDB's knowledge of the
> > > + executing state to frontend when not able to fetch registers.
> > > + (wait_for_inferior): Chnage to propagate GDB's knowledge of
> > ^^^^^^ typo
> >
> >
> > > + the executing state if not able to fetch backtrace once the
> > > + step has already occured.
> > ^^^^^^^ typo.
> >
> > In each changelog entry, we'll put 'what do we change' instead of 'why
> > do we change in this way'. So this entry can be simplified.
>
> Hi.
>
> I agree with your first sentence, and would add that if such an
> explanation is needed, it belongs in the code not the changelog.
> [We don't have enough comments in the code explaining *why* things
> are the way they are.]
>
> But I'd say that's not the case here, at least for the changelog entries.
> Instead, I would remove the leading "Change to", and just say "Propagate ...".
>
> Also, I would add a comment to the code explaining *why* the calls are wrapped
> in catch_error (and I would have the comment live at the call to catch_error,
> not in the definition of the two new stubs).
>
> One could also say the two new functions also require comments,
> but they're pretty simple and hook_stop_stub doesn't have a comment,
> so I'd be ok with leaving them out.
Thanks for the review. Please find attached the modified patch.
-Ali