On Sat, Oct 07, 2006 at 03:37:27PM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote: > Well, please detail what you mean with your "CPP macros make code > unmaintainable" statement, Tom Rini. I think that Piet Delaney is totally > right about this, and I think he refers to the official coding style (see > below for references). Documentation/SubmittingPatches explains this (it > should be moved in CodingStyle however!) in Section 2, point #2.
Because of the odd conditionals we'd be doing. Please, implement a patch just doing what's being suggested and then explain how it's cleaner looking than what's done today. But more importantly, I and Piet/George are talking at cross-purposes. My goal is to say that with KGDB integrated, as Andrew has said he will get KGDB into mainline if it's clean, as much of the code _runs_ the same, KGDB enabled or not. Piet/George seem to argue that with KGDB integrated, the code _runs_ the same _with_KGDB_disabled_ as it does _without_KGDB_integrated_. Now George's later point about being able to set traps twice, so long as it is to the same thing, is interesting. Today it's just i386 and ARM that have an 'early_trap_init', and I'd be willing to make a very small wager that ARM doesn't really need it, just i386. And for that, perhaps we could just handle it in kgdb_arch_init(), again especially given what George noted. -- Tom Rini ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Kgdb-bugreport mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kgdb-bugreport
