[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Comments in .notfunction?

From: Miller, Matt (SCON)
Subject: Re: Comments in .notfunction?
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2021 13:20:54 +0000
User-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.50.21061301

That sounds good too!



-----Original Message-----
From: Shigio YAMAGUCHI <shigio@gnu.org>
Date: Thursday, July 15, 2021 at 9:38 PM
To: "Miller, Matt (SCON)" <Matt.Miller2@netapp.com>
Cc: "bug-global@gnu.org" <bug-global@gnu.org>, "Park, Collin" 
Subject: Re: Comments in .notfunction?

NetApp Security WARNING: This is an external email. Do not click links or open 
attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I'm worried you may not be able to handle function names that
start with a '#'.
How about using ';'?  I don't think using ';' at the beginning of
a function name cannot happen in any language.

; The names given here are not considered functions.


On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 12:23 AM Miller, Matt (SCON)
<Matt.Miller2@netapp.com> wrote:
> Based on a very quick glance of the code (version 6.6.6), it looks like in 
> load_notfunction(), the STRBUF_SHARPSKIP flag could be added to the 
> strbuf_fgets() call to support '#' prefixed comment lines in .notfunction:
> 83         for (tablesize = 0; (p = strbuf_fgets(ib, ip, STRBUF_NOCRLF)) != 
> NULL; tablesize++)
> 84                 strbuf_puts0(sb, p);
> If that evaluation is correct, we were wondering if that would be a minor 
> enhancement worth tracking.
> Thanks,
> Matt

Shigio YAMAGUCHI <shigio@gnu.org>
PGP fingerprint:
26F6 31B4 3D62 4A92 7E6F  1C33 969C 3BE3 89DD A6EB

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]