Re: [PATCH 1/2] Expand documentation of common-utils.h::FUNCTION_NAME

[Doug Evans <dje@google.com>]

On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 8:59 PM, Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com> wrote:
>> > 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 "<unknown function>" rather than NULL.
> Without more evidence, not clear which would be best...

Yeah.
The argument against <unknown function> is that maybe sometime one
would want to know if its unknown, and comparison with NULL is easier,
more maintainable than strcmp (unless "<unknown function>" was a
macro, but maybe that's overkill).