From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29567 invoked by alias); 22 Jan 2014 04:59:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 29555 invoked by uid 89); 22 Jan 2014 04:59:58 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: rock.gnat.com Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 04:59:57 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3359D116348; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 23:59:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id MlaQ648Dbnbn; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 23:59:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5E91116345; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 23:59:55 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id EA3ACE059C; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 08:59:56 +0400 (RET) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 04:59:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Doug Evans Cc: gdb-patches Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Expand documentation of common-utils.h::FUNCTION_NAME Message-ID: <20140122045956.GA4762@adacore.com> References: <20140118015244.GA22787@sourceware.org> <1390300575-6998-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SW-Source: 2014-01/txt/msg00839.txt.bz2 > > gdb/ChangeLog: > > > > * common/common-utils.h (FUNCTION_NAME): Expand the macro's > > documentation a bit. > > > > I would commit on its own, but since I am going to put the next in > > for the same macro up for review, it's just as easy to make that one > > wait as well, in case there are comments. > > Yeah, I stumbled a bit on this myself. > It's not clear to me whether not defining it or defining it as NULL > (and update all current users to deal with that) is better but I went > with keeping things as they are. I almost had the same thoughts. I agree that it's just best to let things as they are until we have evidence that changing them would be beneficial. The difference is that I was thinking of defining FUNCTION_NAME to something like "" rather than NULL. Without more evidence, not clear which would be best... -- Joel