From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19693 invoked by alias); 23 Aug 2002 22:02:34 -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 19686 invoked from network); 23 Aug 2002 22:02:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO takamaka.act-europe.fr) (205.232.38.247) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 23 Aug 2002 22:02:33 -0000 Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id 69951D2CBD; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 15:02:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 15:06:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Michael Snyder Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Minor reformatting in infrun.c Message-ID: <20020823220232.GB25997@gnat.com> References: <20020817001848.GX906@gnat.com> <3D5DB58E.3A856EB3@redhat.com> <20020822234116.GU25997@gnat.com> <3D657A41.EBE52A4B@redhat.com> <20020823162729.GZ25997@gnat.com> <3D667E8E.8616E88F@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3D667E8E.8616E88F@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00775.txt.bz2 > > I can commit the following patch. I verified that a later re-indent > > does not cause a formatting change in the second argument. > > Yes, I committed this change. > and now I can see no reason not to put the arguments back > the way they were originally. Or, say. > > stop_bpstat = > bpstat_stop_status (&stop_pc, > [...] Absolutely. But unfortunately this is not the way indent formats it: << stop_bpstat = bpstat_stop_status (&stop_pc, sw_single_step_trap_p || (currently_stepping (ecs) && prev_pc != stop_pc - DECR_PC_AFTER_BREAK && !(step_range_end && INNER_THAN (read_sp (), (step_sp - 16))))); >> Should I check-in the indent'ed version anyway? (I would send a separate [PATCH] message) -- Joel