| Message ID | CAH6eHdQFqddDpRe+dODOpBt8upYuBF-4iiToLYAJgGwsAwBC4A@mail.gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
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 <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> > Jim Avera <james_avera@yahoo.com> > > * doc/extend.texi (__builtin_expect): Improve example. > > > Can I get approval to check this in to trunk? > > > >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> >> To: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org> >> Cc: james_avera@yahoo.com; gcc@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
Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> 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 <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> > Jim Avera <james_avera@yahoo.com> > > * 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
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