From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-86282-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 2564 invoked by alias); 18 Dec 2011 13:53:03 -0000
Received: (qmail 2550 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Dec 2011 13:53:02 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.3 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (83.163.83.176)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 13:52:49 +0000
Received: from glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost [127.0.0.1])	by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.5/8.14.3) with ESMTP id pBIDqCoc024611;	Sun, 18 Dec 2011 14:52:12 +0100 (CET)
Received: (from kettenis@localhost)	by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.5/8.14.3/Submit) id pBIDq9D0023292;	Sun, 18 Dec 2011 14:52:09 +0100 (CET)
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 15:50:00 -0000
Message-Id: <201112181352.pBIDq9D0023292@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
To: jan.kratochvil@redhat.com
CC: brobecker@adacore.com, eliz@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org,        pedro@codesourcery.com
In-reply-to: <20111218115931.GA22952@host2.jankratochvil.net> (message from	Jan Kratochvil on Sun, 18 Dec 2011 12:59:31 +0100)
Subject: Re: Code formatting  [Re: [patch] s390*: watchpoints regression  [repost]]
References:  <20111218115931.GA22952@host2.jankratochvil.net>
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-12/txt/msg00601.txt.bz2

> Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 12:59:31 +0100
> From: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
> 
> 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.

I agree with Jan here.