Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] Fix `add-symbol-file -o ... -s ...` address mapping bug

[Keith Seitz <keiths@redhat.com>]

On 9/25/26 12:15 AM, Dragorn421 wrote:
> On 9/24/26 20:54, Keith Seitz wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thank you for the revision. This looks good, I just note one
>> tiny nit.
>>
>> On 9/23/26 8:51 PM, Dragorn421 wrote:
>>> diff --git a/gdb/symfile.c b/gdb/symfile.c
>>> index 017f7a49d8d..5691c2a46d9 100644
>>> --- a/gdb/symfile.c
>>> +++ b/gdb/symfile.c
>>> @@ -2163,7 +2163,7 @@ set_objfile_default_section_offset (struct 
>>> objfile *objf,
>>>       }
>>>           if (cmp == 0)
>>> -    offsets[objf_sect->sectindex] = 0;
>>> +    offsets[objf_sect->sectindex] = objf->section_offsets[objf_sect- 
>>> >sectindex];
>>
>> This line is now too long. Suggest moving "= ..." to the next line as
>> per our usual coding convention. No need to repost this patch. 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the review.
> 
> What do you mean by "No need to repost this patch."? Should I just send 
> the other (test-adding) patch on its own from now on?

That's what I would do, yes, but you do not have to if it is easier for
you to track this. You could simply continue to post both patches.

> So will a maintainer possibly take care of formatting that too-long line 
> after applying the patch?
You would make the change locally, pushing that when a maintainer
approved the whole series.

My apologies for not keeping this simpler for first time contributors.

Keith