From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22977 invoked by alias); 12 Dec 2012 04:29:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 22967 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Dec 2012 04:29:03 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO 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; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 04:28:59 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A21672E192; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 23:28:58 -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 wBBxLhti3wfi; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 23:28:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 153BE2E19D; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 23:28:58 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7C205C07B9; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 08:28:36 +0400 (RET) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 04:29:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: Eli Zaretskii , 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: <20121212042836.GR31477@adacore.com> 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> <20121211204341.GA15341@host2.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121211204341.GA15341@host2.jankratochvil.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) 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/msg00377.txt.bz2 > 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. FWIW, I was only stating my opinion, and asking what others thought. I don't think this is very important, and I wouldn't object the removal of this part from the new rules, if people think we're going too far. -- Joel