From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10824 invoked by alias); 13 Mar 2017 19:39:33 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 10814 invoked by uid 89); 13 Mar 2017 19:39:32 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 19:39:31 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5472BAFAE6; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 19:39:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn04.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.4]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v2DJdU64017325; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 15:39:31 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] inf-ptrace: Do not stop memory transfers after a single word To: Simon Marchi , Andreas Arnez References: <1488816060-20776-1-git-send-email-arnez@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1488816060-20776-2-git-send-email-arnez@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <06e5cf43-bb8b-6fa5-7201-414dc88388a3@ericsson.com> <5a22f112-9443-b796-9f34-aee112b63625@ericsson.com> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <179457d2-c2aa-dd8d-d9c2-e1d3cca93930@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 19:39:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5a22f112-9443-b796-9f34-aee112b63625@ericsson.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2017-03/txt/msg00198.txt.bz2 On 03/10/2017 03:48 PM, Simon Marchi wrote: > I don't the idea behind that rule. I thought it was just for readability, > to make it clear that the variable is a pointer without having to refer to the > declaration. Perhaps some older timers could shed some light on that :). I don't know the original rationale, but I agree that nowadays the justification can only be in terms of readability. The same reason we do if (integer_that_is_not_a_boolean != 0) instead of if (integer_that_is_not_a_boolean) . Thanks, Pedro Alves