From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13613 invoked by alias); 9 Mar 2010 04:52:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 13599 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Mar 2010 04:52:51 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 09 Mar 2010 04:52:45 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF8412BAB62; Mon, 8 Mar 2010 23:52:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id ACcw-9Z86VYx; Mon, 8 Mar 2010 23:52:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FE1C2BAB4C; Mon, 8 Mar 2010 23:52:43 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D3E4DF5894; Tue, 9 Mar 2010 08:52:27 +0400 (RET) Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 04:52:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Kevin Buettner Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] remote-mips.c: Add support for NEC rockhopper boards Message-ID: <20100309045227.GL3081@adacore.com> References: <20100305161522.735aadec@redhat.com> <20100306044223.GP2832@adacore.com> <20100306000443.06e081be@redhat.com> <20100307053317.GR2832@adacore.com> <20100308121028.006c65ae@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100308121028.006c65ae@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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 X-SW-Source: 2010-03/txt/msg00347.txt.bz2 > I noticed that several of the other _open functions are missing > comments describing what they do also. I was tempted to add those > comments to this patch too, but decided against it since that would go > beyond the intended scope of this patch. Definitely agreed. It's great that you're willing to improve the situation in this case, but it's only up to you (it would be unfair to ask this everytime a file is touched...). -- Joel