From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18582 invoked by alias); 21 Jun 2013 15:51:22 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 18571 invoked by uid 89); 21 Jun 2013 15:51:22 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 15:51:21 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B5DC1C6787; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 11:51:20 -0400 (EDT) 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 UD3xmYH-iAiX; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 11:51:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E06791C6744; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 11:51:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id AC84EC14BE; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 08:51:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 15:55:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" Cc: Yao Qi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Move mips hardware watchpoint stuff to common/ Message-ID: <20130621155117.GF4724@adacore.com> References: <1369881867-11372-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <1369881867-11372-3-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <51B93F00.5090002@codesourcery.com> <51C305F0.90008@codesourcery.com> <20130620172844.GE4724@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SW-Source: 2013-06/txt/msg00596.txt.bz2 > FWIW and IMHO. What you say makes sense to me, and I would agree to an update. I do think that we should try to standardize to a minimum number of lengths. For new, we have two kinds of "text": - Documentation/comments - Code I'd agree to 78 or 79 for code, and I've often found that the extra length would allow a statement to fit on fewer lines, looking and reading better. I would add that I've always felt that 70 was a soft limit, and that people should feel free to extend when needed. For documentation, I would have stayed with 70, except that ChangeLog files can be considered code. I'm wondering if we could try 74 instead. FWIW and IMHO as well :). The problem with those types of discussions that people tend to discuss them a lot, but then it's hard to actually make any decision. I'll say I'm flexible - and actually have been already wrt past code reviews. I think of this "rule" more as a guideline, rather than a hard rule. -- Joel