* [fixme] another case statement without a break -- intentional?
@ 2011-02-26 20:50 Michael Snyder
2011-02-28 4:23 ` Joel Brobecker
2011-02-28 4:47 ` [commit] add FALLTHROUGH comment in ada-exp.y:write_object_renaming Joel Brobecker
0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Michael Snyder @ 2011-02-26 20:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-patches, Joel Brobecker
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 51 bytes --]
Joel, can I ask you for a judgement call?
Michael
[-- Attachment #2: fallthru2.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 499 bytes --]
Index: ada-exp.y
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/ada-exp.y,v
retrieving revision 1.41
diff -u -p -u -p -r1.41 ada-exp.y
--- ada-exp.y 1 Jan 2011 15:32:55 -0000 1.41
+++ ada-exp.y 26 Feb 2011 20:42:51 -0000
@@ -920,6 +920,7 @@ write_object_renaming (struct block *ori
break;
case 'L':
slice_state = LOWER_BOUND;
+ /* FIXME --- fall through???? */
case 'S':
renaming_expr += 1;
if (isdigit (*renaming_expr))
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [fixme] another case statement without a break -- intentional?
2011-02-26 20:50 [fixme] another case statement without a break -- intentional? Michael Snyder
@ 2011-02-28 4:23 ` Joel Brobecker
2011-02-28 18:00 ` Michael Snyder
2011-02-28 4:47 ` [commit] add FALLTHROUGH comment in ada-exp.y:write_object_renaming Joel Brobecker
1 sibling, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Joel Brobecker @ 2011-02-28 4:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael Snyder; +Cc: gdb-patches
> Joel, can I ask you for a judgement call?
> Michael
Yes, the fallthrough seems to be by-design, but I will ask Paul,
who wrote that code.
Thanks,
--
Joel
> Index: ada-exp.y
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/ada-exp.y,v
> retrieving revision 1.41
> diff -u -p -u -p -r1.41 ada-exp.y
> --- ada-exp.y 1 Jan 2011 15:32:55 -0000 1.41
> +++ ada-exp.y 26 Feb 2011 20:42:51 -0000
> @@ -920,6 +920,7 @@ write_object_renaming (struct block *ori
> break;
> case 'L':
> slice_state = LOWER_BOUND;
> + /* FIXME --- fall through???? */
> case 'S':
> renaming_expr += 1;
> if (isdigit (*renaming_expr))
--
Joel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* [commit] add FALLTHROUGH comment in ada-exp.y:write_object_renaming
2011-02-26 20:50 [fixme] another case statement without a break -- intentional? Michael Snyder
2011-02-28 4:23 ` Joel Brobecker
@ 2011-02-28 4:47 ` Joel Brobecker
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Joel Brobecker @ 2011-02-28 4:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-patches; +Cc: Joel Brobecker
Actually, I looked at the code again, and matched it against the specs
(in GCC: ada/exp_dbug.ads), and it seemed to be correct. We might have
been able to write the code a little differently, but we need the
state-machine thingy because, for some reason, XS<number> has a different
meaning depending on whether it is preceded by an XL<number> or not.
It would have been simpler if we used XS<number> purely for subscripting
and then XU<number> for encoding the upper bound of the slice. But we're
stuck with old decisions, now (that was BMT).
I took the liberty of committing this patch, since Michael's patch
did not have a ChangeLog:
gdb/ChangeLog:
From Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>
* ada-exp.y (write_object_renaming): Add FALLTHROUGH comment.
Checked in.
---
gdb/ChangeLog | 5 +++++
gdb/ada-exp.y | 1 +
2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gdb/ChangeLog b/gdb/ChangeLog
index 041543b..682c9f1 100644
--- a/gdb/ChangeLog
+++ b/gdb/ChangeLog
@@ -1,3 +1,8 @@
+2011-02-28 Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
+
+ From Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>
+ * ada-exp.y (write_object_renaming): Add FALLTHROUGH comment.
+
2011-02-27 Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>
* objc-lang.c (selectors_info): Prevent string overrun.
diff --git a/gdb/ada-exp.y b/gdb/ada-exp.y
index e56b7bc..e64d1eb 100644
--- a/gdb/ada-exp.y
+++ b/gdb/ada-exp.y
@@ -920,6 +920,7 @@ write_object_renaming (struct block *orig_left_context,
break;
case 'L':
slice_state = LOWER_BOUND;
+ /* FALLTHROUGH */
case 'S':
renaming_expr += 1;
if (isdigit (*renaming_expr))
--
1.7.1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [fixme] another case statement without a break -- intentional?
2011-02-28 4:23 ` Joel Brobecker
@ 2011-02-28 18:00 ` Michael Snyder
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Michael Snyder @ 2011-02-28 18:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joel Brobecker; +Cc: gdb-patches
Joel Brobecker wrote:
>> Joel, can I ask you for a judgement call?
>> Michael
>
> Yes, the fallthrough seems to be by-design, but I will ask Paul,
> who wrote that code.
Joel,
If it is intended, could you add a comment?
Thanks,
Michael
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-02-28 17:53 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-02-26 20:50 [fixme] another case statement without a break -- intentional? Michael Snyder
2011-02-28 4:23 ` Joel Brobecker
2011-02-28 18:00 ` Michael Snyder
2011-02-28 4:47 ` [commit] add FALLTHROUGH comment in ada-exp.y:write_object_renaming Joel Brobecker
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).