From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-39024-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 21827 invoked by alias); 28 Apr 2005 07:10:16 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 21636 invoked from network); 28 Apr 2005 07:10:01 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO legolas.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.24)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 28 Apr 2005 07:10:01 -0000
Received: from zaretski (IGLD-80-230-65-115.inter.net.il [80.230.65.115])
	by legolas.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.6-GR)
	with ESMTP id EGD22913 (AUTH halo1);
	Thu, 28 Apr 2005 10:09:56 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:10:00 -0000
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
Message-ID: <01c54bc1$Blat.v2.4$35ba4ba0@zahav.net.il>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
In-reply-to: <200504271742.j3RHgpB5019802@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> (message
	from Mark Kettenis on Wed, 27 Apr 2005 19:42:51 +0200 (CEST))
Subject: Re: [RFA] Fix file name generation in edit_command (was: Ver 6.3 edit command failing)
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References: <E1DLM3u-0000IQ-Vj@lists.gnu.org> <01c54b35$Blat.v2.4$c3f52520@zahav.net.il> <20050427143620.GA1686@nevyn.them.org> <01c54b40$Blat.v2.4$be3bafe0@zahav.net.il> <200504271742.j3RHgpB5019802@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
X-SW-Source: 2005-04/txt/msg00386.txt.bz2

> Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 19:42:51 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
> CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
> 
> Is it just me, or do others also find the NULL == expression bits a
> bit odd?

There's a school of thought that writing comparisons with a constant
like this prevent errors whereby one uses "=" instead of "==": any
reasonable compiler will yell bloody murder if you say "NULL = foo",
while "foo = NULL" might go unnoticed with some compilers.

However, it looks like the fragment I was patching is the only one
which uses this notation in the while cli directory, so perhaps it's
okay to swap the identifiers to the more traditional form.