From 05d999b0896ab6ccd4ce23a715765484c60a967d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Simon Marchi Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 12:01:05 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Change type of struct complaints::series Found while processing the C++ enum changes. It seems like series should be of type enum complaint_series, instead of adding a cast. Redundant and out of date comments are also removed. gdb/ChangeLog: * complaints.c (enum complaint_series): Add newlines and remove out of date comment. (struct complaints) : Change type to enum complaint_series and remove out of date comment. (symfile_complaint_hook): Use equivalent enum value ISOLATED_MESSAGE instead of 0. --- gdb/ChangeLog | 9 +++++++++ gdb/complaints.c | 17 +++++------------ 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/gdb/ChangeLog b/gdb/ChangeLog index 193581f..6c854ac 100644 --- a/gdb/ChangeLog +++ b/gdb/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,12 @@ +2015-08-06 Simon Marchi + + * complaints.c (enum complaint_series): Add newlines and remove + out of date comment. + (struct complaints) : Change type to enum + complaint_series and remove out of date comment. + (symfile_complaint_hook): Use equivalent enum value + ISOLATED_MESSAGE instead of 0. + 2015-08-06 Pedro Alves * nat/linux-waitpid.c (my_waitpid): Only print *status if waitpid diff --git a/gdb/complaints.c b/gdb/complaints.c index dbacb2a..b696181 100644 --- a/gdb/complaints.c +++ b/gdb/complaints.c @@ -27,18 +27,17 @@ extern void _initialize_complaints (void); /* Should each complaint message be self explanatory, or should we assume that a series of complaints is being produced? */ -/* case 1: First message of a series that must - start off with explanation. case 2: Subsequent message of a series - that needs no explanation (the user already knows we have a problem - so we can just state our piece). */ enum complaint_series { /* Isolated self explanatory message. */ ISOLATED_MESSAGE, + /* First message of a series, includes an explanation. */ FIRST_MESSAGE, + /* First message of a series, but does not need to include any sort of explanation. */ SHORT_FIRST_MESSAGE, + /* Subsequent message of a series that needs no explanation (the user already knows we have a problem so we can just state our piece). */ @@ -69,13 +68,7 @@ struct complaints { struct complain *root; - /* Should each complaint be self explanatory, or should we assume - that a series of complaints is being produced? case 0: Isolated - self explanatory message. case 1: First message of a series that - must start off with explanation. case 2: Subsequent message of a - series that needs no explanation (the user already knows we have - a problem so we can just state our piece). */ - int series; + enum complaint_series series; /* The explanatory messages that should accompany the complaint. NOTE: cagney/2002-08-14: In a desperate attempt at being vaguely @@ -99,7 +92,7 @@ static struct explanation symfile_explanations[] = { static struct complaints symfile_complaint_book = { &complaint_sentinel, - 0, + ISOLATED_MESSAGE, symfile_explanations }; struct complaints *symfile_complaints = &symfile_complaint_book; -- 2.7.4