Re: Possible wrong-way example in gcc4-4-2 documentation of __builtin_expect
Jonathan Wakely writes: > In order to follow the GCC coding style (a space between the function > name and opening parenthesis) and to match the first example for > __builtin_expect, I propose this patch instead: > > Index: extend.texi > === > --- extend.texi (revision 182452) > +++ extend.texi (working copy) > @@ -7932,7 +7932,7 @@ expressions for @var{exp}, you should us > > @smallexample > if (__builtin_expect (ptr != NULL, 1)) > - error (); > + ptr->foo (); > @end smallexample > > @noindent > > > I've CC'd the gcc-patches list, which is where patches should be sent > for review, and included a ChangeLog entry: > > 2011-12-21 Jonathan Wakely > Jim Avera > > * doc/extend.texi (__builtin_expect): Improve example. > > > Can I get approval to check this in to trunk? This is fine, with or without your proposed change. Thanks. Ian
Re: Possible wrong-way example in gcc4-4-2 documentation of __builtin_expect
On 21 December 2011 18:03, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 21 December 2011 02:00, Jim Avera wrote: >> Ok, here is a patch which improves the example: >> >> --- gcc/doc/extend.texi.ORIG 2011-12-20 17:35:32.236578828 -0800 >> +++ gcc/doc/extend.texi 2011-12-20 17:37:10.460583316 -0800 >> @@ -7932,7 +7932,7 @@ >> >> @smallexample >> if (__builtin_expect (ptr != NULL, 1)) >> - error (); >> + ptr->do_something(); >> @end smallexample >> >> @noindent > > In order to follow the GCC coding style (a space between the function > name and opening parenthesis) and to match the first example for > __builtin_expect, I propose this patch instead: > > Index: extend.texi > === > --- extend.texi (revision 182452) > +++ extend.texi (working copy) > @@ -7932,7 +7932,7 @@ expressions for @var{exp}, you should us > > @smallexample > if (__builtin_expect (ptr != NULL, 1)) > - error (); > + ptr->foo (); > @end smallexample > > @noindent Then again, maybe foo (*ptr) would be even better, so it looks more like C not C++ code. > I've CC'd the gcc-patches list, which is where patches should be sent > for review, and included a ChangeLog entry: > > 2011-12-21 Jonathan Wakely > Jim Avera > > * doc/extend.texi (__builtin_expect): Improve example. > > > Can I get approval to check this in to trunk? > > > >> >> >> ________________ >> From: Jonathan Wakely >> To: Segher Boessenkool >> Cc: james_av...@yahoo.com; g...@gcc.gnu.org >> Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 5:22 AM >> Subject: Re: Possible wrong-way example in gcc4-4-2 documentation of >> __builtin_expect >> >> On 20 December 2011 12:49, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >>> >>> The point of the example is that you cannot write >>> >>> if (__builtin_expect (ptr, 1)) >>> error (); >>> >>> so the "!= NULL" is important here. But you are right that >>> "error ()" is a bit unexpected; care to send a patch that changes >>> it to e.g. "do_something ()"? >> >> or even ptr->do_something() since that would depend on the value of ptr
Re: Possible wrong-way example in gcc4-4-2 documentation of __builtin_expect
On 21 December 2011 02:00, Jim Avera wrote: > Ok, here is a patch which improves the example: > > --- gcc/doc/extend.texi.ORIG 2011-12-20 17:35:32.236578828 -0800 > +++ gcc/doc/extend.texi 2011-12-20 17:37:10.460583316 -0800 > @@ -7932,7 +7932,7 @@ > > @smallexample > if (__builtin_expect (ptr != NULL, 1)) > - error (); > + ptr->do_something(); > @end smallexample > > @noindent In order to follow the GCC coding style (a space between the function name and opening parenthesis) and to match the first example for __builtin_expect, I propose this patch instead: Index: extend.texi === --- extend.texi (revision 182452) +++ extend.texi (working copy) @@ -7932,7 +7932,7 @@ expressions for @var{exp}, you should us @smallexample if (__builtin_expect (ptr != NULL, 1)) - error (); + ptr->foo (); @end smallexample @noindent I've CC'd the gcc-patches list, which is where patches should be sent for review, and included a ChangeLog entry: 2011-12-21 Jonathan Wakely Jim Avera * doc/extend.texi (__builtin_expect): Improve example. Can I get approval to check this in to trunk? > > > > From: Jonathan Wakely > To: Segher Boessenkool > Cc: james_av...@yahoo.com; g...@gcc.gnu.org > Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 5:22 AM > Subject: Re: Possible wrong-way example in gcc4-4-2 documentation of > __builtin_expect > > On 20 December 2011 12:49, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >> >> The point of the example is that you cannot write >> >> if (__builtin_expect (ptr, 1)) >> error (); >> >> so the "!= NULL" is important here. But you are right that >> "error ()" is a bit unexpected; care to send a patch that changes >> it to e.g. "do_something ()"? > > or even ptr->do_something() since that would depend on the value of ptr