From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19302 invoked by alias); 10 Nov 2011 18:36:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 19033 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Nov 2011 18:36:53 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,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; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 18:36:35 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pAAIaDPH006868 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 10 Nov 2011 13:36:13 -0500 Received: from valrhona.uglyboxes.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pAAIaAOR023472 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 10 Nov 2011 13:36:12 -0500 Message-ID: <4EBC199A.7020906@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 18:36:00 -0000 From: Keith Seitz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:7.0) Gecko/20110927 Thunderbird/7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org ml" Subject: Re: [RFA/ping] 12843 References: <4EBC06AD.6050205@redhat.com> <20111110181249.GD5390@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20111110181249.GD5390@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2011-11/txt/msg00289.txt.bz2 On 11/10/2011 10:12 AM, Joel Brobecker wrote: >> - || p[0] == '\t' >> - || (p[0] == ':') >> + || p[0] == '\t' || p[0] == ':' > > I wish reformatting changes like this were made separately. > Usually, they can even be checked in under the obvious rule... > In this case, not so sure - I like the previous formatting better, > because each branch of the multiple-or was on its own line. > But don't change it on my account, it's not terribly important. > Agh! Jan noticed this, too, and I totally forgot about it. My guess is that I actually *did* have a change there at one time, but "reverted" it (to this reformatted entry). I'll wipe that out. I am also going to try to run the MinGW test suite on gdb before committing. That should be fun. Keith