From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1683 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2014 19:26:58 -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 1652 invoked by uid 89); 16 Jan 2014 19:26:58 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 19:26:58 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s0GJQsT0013251 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 16 Jan 2014 14:26:55 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s0GJQrg6031867; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 14:26:54 -0500 Message-ID: <52D8327D.7010403@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 19:26:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sergio Durigan Junior CC: Simon Marchi , GDB Patches Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add comments to gdbarch_address_class_name_to_type_flags References: <52D8293B.6060701@ericsson.com> <52D82EDF.5010402@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-01/txt/msg00647.txt.bz2 On 01/16/2014 07:21 PM, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: > On Thursday, January 16 2014, Pedro Alves wrote: > >> On 01/16/2014 06:47 PM, Simon Marchi wrote: >>> +/* Return the appropriate type_flags for the supplied address class. >>> + This function should return 1 if the address class was recognized and >>> + type_flags was set, zero otherwise. >> >> Say true/false instead of 1/zero. > > Sorry, but don't you think this is too nitpicking? And is also the > first time I remember seeing such requirement. I myself use "1/zero" > all the time, and I don't think this is an issue at all. It's really GDB's style throughout. It's not a big issue, and I'd really let it go if I didn't have any other comments. But since I was making other comments, I took the opportunity to point that out. Really not to be picky at all, but to take the chance to educate on GDB's style. > But I don't want to be meta-nitpicking, of course. Well, you sort of are. ;-) -- Pedro Alves