Re: [rfa] symbol hashing, part 2/n - ALL_BLOCK_SYMBOLS

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Fri, Oct 12, 2001 at 12:16:06PM -0400, Elena Zannoni wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
>  > On Thu, Oct 11, 2001 at 07:54:50PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>  > > On Thu, Oct 11, 2001 at 07:46:33PM -0400, Elena Zannoni wrote:
>  > > > 
>  > > > Daniel,
>  > > > Thanks so much for doing this. It makes it so much easier.
>  > > > 
>  > > > Yes, I looked ths over and it seems to work, except that I would really
>  > > > prefer the change to printcmd.c split in two. The first bit to
>  > > > rationalize that "if (func)..."  code. This would have with it all
>  > > > the indentation changes as well. The code as it is now doesn't really
>  > > > make much sense. So, that looks a good change to me. But it has nothing
>  > > > to do with the new macro.  After that change is in, you can introduce
>  > > > the macro in printcmd.c w/o having all the indent changes.
>  > > > It also makes it easier to distinguish a no-op change (the macro) from
>  > > > the other one.
>  > > 
>  > > OK.  Would you prefer I resubmit this patch broken up further, then? 
>  > > I could do that.
>  > 
>  > Having reduced it to truly obvious, I'm going to commit the attached
>  > patch, unless someone objects strenuously in the near future.  A diff
>  > ignoring whitespace shows that I am only moving a brace from before a
>  > for loop to after it; the for loop will never be executed unless the if
>  > is taken, anyway.  This'll shrink the other patch quite a bit.
>  > 
> 
> Yes, thanks!!

So let it be written, etc. etc.  Committed.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer