From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6830 invoked by alias); 18 Dec 2011 12:00:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 6817 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Dec 2011 12:00:09 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 11:59:55 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pBIBxax9000585 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 18 Dec 2011 06:59:36 -0500 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-60.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.60]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pBIBxWtd004434 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 18 Dec 2011 06:59:34 -0500 Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 12:38:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Joel Brobecker , Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, pedro@codesourcery.com Subject: Code formatting [Re: [patch] s390*: watchpoints regression [repost]] Message-ID: <20111218115931.GA22952@host2.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111218104634.GJ21915@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2011-12/txt/msg00599.txt.bz2 On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 11:46:34 +0100, Joel Brobecker wrote: > Regarding the extra curly braces, I think it's OK to leave them out, > like so: > On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 12:37:59 +0100, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > It then requires new { brackets } > > I don't think you need braces. The compiler certainly doesn't. While this is bikeshedding in its purest form I can jump in. > if ([...]) > /* This is a comment that ... */ > return; This is a bug from the first sight as there are two C statements attached to an `if' conditional. Two statements always need a block. This is a bug. I really do not have time to interrupt myself each time, several times a minute, looking at the code starting examining what those two statements semantically are, and therefore if they really require a block or not. Thanks, Jan