From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 918 invoked by alias); 16 Jul 2002 21:02:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 908 invoked from network); 16 Jul 2002 21:02:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (66.30.197.194) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Jul 2002 21:02:18 -0000 Received: by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 469) id ECB0A108C9; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 17:00:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Elena Zannoni MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15668.35195.754595.953902@localhost.redhat.com> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 14:09:00 -0000 To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] unneeded extra brace in infrun.c (handle_inferior_event) In-Reply-To: <20020716204432.GE2700@gnat.com> References: <20020716204432.GE2700@gnat.com> X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00356.txt.bz2 Joel Brobecker writes: > While reading the code, I found this comment along the extra unneeded > brace: > > /* Keep this extra brace for now, minimizes diffs. */ > { > > This brace causes an extra 2 characters indentation to the right for the > entire function (which is quite long, actually). No big deal, but it > would take me very little time to remove it if that's useful. Shall I do > it? > > -- > Joel I remember that! (Does that mean I am becoming an old timer? Oh dear.) The comment was introduced by Stan when he did some major cleanup of this function (at the time called wait_for_inferior). There were so many changes that adding formatting changes would have made really difficult to track (and back possibly back out) all the functional ones. I vote for reindenting the code. Infrun.c has been on the quiet side for a bit, and I don't think this change will cause any problems. Elena