Re: [SFN+LVU+IEPM v4 7/9] [LVU] Introduce location views

[Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@linaro.org>]

Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> writes:
> On Jan 26, 2018, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> Having to tweak debug info consumers so that they treat DW_LLE_* of 9
>> one way for .debug_loclist of version 5 and another way for .debug_loclist
>> of version 6 isn't a good idea.
>
> Maybe we don't have to do that.  The reason I implemented the proposed
> format was to have a reference implementation, but since it's an
> extension to a non-extensible part of DWARF5, it's hard to justify
> consumer implementations for that.
>
>> Why don't you emit the DW_LLE_GNU_view_pair stuff in .debug_loclists
>> already with -gdwarf-5, if needed paired without some TU attribute that says
>> that views are emitted?
>
> Because that would make the loclists unreadable for any DWARF5-compliant
> consumer.
>
>
>> Haven't looked for it it in the coding standards, but it is something
>> I've been asked to do in my code by various reviewers over the years and
>> what I've been asking others in my patch reviews from others too.
>
> Thanks.  It was the first (well, second; you'd requested similar changes
> another time before) I heard of that.  I'm still unconvinced the way I
> used is not compliant, but I'll keep that in mind.  Hopefully I won't
> run into someone who insists the other one (the one you reject) is the
> only correct one ;-)
>
>> I feel strongly about indenting stuff right,
>
> I'm with you on that, we just have different ideas about what "right"
> stands for ;-)
>
>> which if it wouldn't fit would be
>>   return verylongcondition____________________________________
>> 	   && otherlongcondition__________________________________;
>> rather than
>>   return verylongcondition____________________________________
>>       && otherlongcondition__________________________________;
>> or similar, it would surprise me if it is not in the coding standard.
>
> I agree neither of these two forms is correct.
>
> But it is my understanding that both of the following are correct:
>
>   return (verylongcondition____________________________________
>           && otherlongcondition__________________________________);
>
>   return verylongcondition____________________________________
>     && otherlongcondition__________________________________;
>
> The first, because the parenthesized expression is continued with
> indentation to match the parenthesis, the second because the return
> statement is continued with the correct indentation for the continuation
> of a statement.

Thought it had to be the first.  When they talk about indenting leading
operators, the conventions say:

  Insert extra parentheses so that Emacs will indent the code properly.

which at least implies that not inserting parantheses and indenting by
two spaces isn't "properly".

And I think most GCC code does stick to that (i.e. use the bracketed form).

Thanks,
Richard