From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 126084 invoked by alias); 25 Jan 2016 22:24:50 -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 126036 invoked by uid 89); 25 Jan 2016 22:24:49 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=lazy 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 (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 25 Jan 2016 22:24:48 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6AD838EA3B; Mon, 25 Jan 2016 22:24:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u0PMOjwK001026; Mon, 25 Jan 2016 17:24:46 -0500 Message-ID: <56A6A0AD.1090901@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 22:24:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Wielaard , Simon Marchi CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix GCC6 -Wmisleading-indentation issues. References: <1453750851-29990-1-git-send-email-mjw@redhat.com> <56A697A2.9060207@ericsson.com> <20160125221411.GA2721@blokker.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20160125221411.GA2721@blokker.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-01/txt/msg00638.txt.bz2 On 01/25/2016 10:14 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 04:46:10PM -0500, Simon Marchi wrote: >> Shouldn't the code inside the brackets be de-indented too? > > Possibly. Or remove the whole block and move stuff into the outer scope > now that it isn't strictly needed. But both create lots of code movement > because of the peculiar ifdefs in this code. And it clearly wasn't the > intention of the original author that removed the if statement in > commit d9d2d8b. Yeah... It was part being lazy and port not wanting to mess git blame for such old code much. There's an easy way around it though. Add an else, like: if (tinfo->run_terminal != NULL || gdb_has_a_terminal () == 0) return; + else { Or, reverse the condition, like: - if (tinfo->run_terminal != NULL || gdb_has_a_terminal () == 0) - return; + if (tinfo->run_terminal == NULL && gdb_has_a_terminal ()) { Thanks, Pedro Alves