It's best that we standardize on process_stratum targets using the
ptid.lwp field to store thread ids. The idea being leave the ptid.tid
field free for any thread_stratum target that might want to sit on
top. This patch adds a comment in that direction to struct ptid's
definition.
gdb/
2014-02-19 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
* common/ptid.h (struct ptid): Mention that process_stratum
targets should prefer ptid.lwp.
The ptid_t contructors, accessors and predicates are documented in
_three_ places, and each place uses a different wording.
E.g, the descriptions in the .c file of the new ptid_lwp_p, ptid_tid_p
weren't updated in the final revision like the descriptions in the .h
file were. Clearly, switching to a style that has a single central
description avoids such issues.
Worse, some of the existing descriptions are plain wrong, such as:
/* Attempt to find and return an existing ptid with the given PID, LWP,
and TID components. If none exists, create a new one and return
that. */
ptid_t ptid_build (int pid, long lwp, long tid);
The function does nothing that complicated. It's just a simple
constructor.
So this gets rid of all the unnecessary descriptions, leaving only the
ones near the function declarations in the header file, and
fixes/clarifies those that remain.
gdb/
2013-10-04 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
* common/ptid.c (null_ptid, minus_one_ptid, ptid_build)
(pid_to_ptid, ptid_get_pid, ptid_get_lwp, ptid_get_tid)
(ptid_equal, ptid_is_pid, ptid_lwp_p, ptid_tid_p): Replace
describing comments with references to ptid.h.
* common/ptid.h: Remove intro description of constructors,
accessors and predicates.
(struct ptid): Reformat.
(minus_one_ptid, ptid_build, pid_to_ptid, ptid_get_pid)
(ptid_get_lwp, ptid_get_tid, ptid_equal, ptid_is_pid): Change
describing comments.
Two modifications:
1. The addition of 2013 to the copyright year range for every file;
2. The use of a single year range, instead of potentially multiple
year ranges, as approved by the FSF.
Joel Brobecker