From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18087 invoked by alias); 22 Nov 2011 16:05:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 18078 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Nov 2011 16:05:56 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 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, 22 Nov 2011 16:05:43 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94AF92BB17A; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 11:05:42 -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 IRVZMjWWnFm9; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 11:05:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45F9A2BB15F; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 11:05:42 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id DAF28145615; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 11:05:39 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 16:05:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Mike Frysinger Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Andrey Smirnov , Marek Polacek Subject: Re: [PATCH 22/348] Fix -Wsahdow warnings Message-ID: <20111122160539.GA22283@adacore.com> References: <878vn88fw3.fsf@gmail.com> <4ECBA525.1010801@redhat.com> <201111221027.52484.vapier@gentoo.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201111221027.52484.vapier@gentoo.org> 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: 2011-11/txt/msg00583.txt.bz2 > please condense down your patches if you resend. there's way too many > little tiny ones that really should be squashed into a single > changeset. In my view, if the patches can be checked in independently, then it is a good thing that they are split. Imagine the situation where one of these changes is bad, we'd then be able to revert that one patch, rather than fixing by hand. > your ChangeLogs are also incorrect. it should not be: > * bcache.c (expand_hash_table): Fix -Wshadow warnings. > but rather: > * bcache.c (expand_hash_table): Rename bcache to cache. I'm 50/50 on this. I don't mind either way. What do others think? Is that really that important that we must create boring extra work for Andrey? -- Joel