From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4403 invoked by alias); 11 Dec 2012 20:43:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 4390 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Dec 2012 20:43:54 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,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; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 20:43:50 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qBBKhl95015627 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 11 Dec 2012 15:43:47 -0500 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-35.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.35]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qBBKhfpM005915 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 11 Dec 2012 15:43:45 -0500 Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 20:43:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: brobecker@adacore.com, palves@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, ratmice@gmail.com Subject: Re: [doc patchv2] coding style: 0 vs. NULL + [patch] Code cleanup: skip.c Message-ID: <20121211204341.GA15341@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20121210184220.GA29321@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20121211015343.GM31477@adacore.com> <20121211060641.GA7775@host2.jankratochvil.net> <50C7093F.5000600@redhat.com> <20121211120057.GO31477@adacore.com> <20121211202228.GA12984@host2.jankratochvil.net> <83vcc88gt5.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <83vcc88gt5.fsf@gnu.org> 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: 2012-12/txt/msg00361.txt.bz2 On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 21:39:02 +0100, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > Okayed -- under protest, because I happen to think that > > if (!pointer) > > is perfectly valid C. This (pointer) and (!pointer) rule is very commonly violated in current GDB. Originally I did not want to go so far with these new rules but why not. Thanks, Jan