From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id zwmQMma3BWA7IQAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 11:29:26 -0500 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id B988D1EF80; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 11:29:26 -0500 (EST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0D631E590 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 11:29:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE41F3834411; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 16:29:24 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org EE41F3834411 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1610987365; bh=w15eFzpBin5rsRAa8vbY5J9TA5iKfvXJVYDuQvzltRI=; h=Subject:To:References:Date:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=MWBrD+mmPYtyGIo/xESLvwbtP2RPpN1449skpfW7W6/UtPXnpNq7J+wCraKzmEblt FCFWA4c10IPzOALocnO5kxIKhuDqMBAf9zq50tW9TfX+EzxmCk33cuwHHJlyH+71LQ 1IOtLZANg2iQb30CjX9GYblHTyYsJJg+kmyiC+gI= Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (smtp.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.11]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D61723834411 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 16:29:19 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org D61723834411 Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.polymtl.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 10IGTD3G020298 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 18 Jan 2021 11:29:18 -0500 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp.polymtl.ca 10IGTD3G020298 Received: from [10.0.0.11] (192-222-157-6.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.157.6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 747E91E590; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 11:29:13 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 14/24] AArch64: Implement the memory tagging gdbarch hooks To: Luis Machado , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20201109170435.15766-1-luis.machado@linaro.org> <20201109170435.15766-15-luis.machado@linaro.org> <7811415a-320c-5672-b4d8-a11425372c2f@polymtl.ca> <6809407d-14dd-945d-dad4-6530d9f6f97a@linaro.org> Message-ID: <608ade02-abfe-b266-206e-9f649256bb94@polymtl.ca> Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2021 11:29:13 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <6809407d-14dd-945d-dad4-6530d9f6f97a@linaro.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Poly-FromMTA: (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) at Mon, 18 Jan 2021 16:29:13 +0000 X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Simon Marchi Cc: david.spickett@linaro.org Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" >>> +      if (g < n) >>> +    { >>> +      warning (_("Got more tags than memory granules.  Tags will be " >>> +             "truncated.")); >>> +    } >> >> Remove curly braces. >> > > Isn't the rule to have curly braces for one-statement conditionals if such statement spans more than a single line? That has been my understanding so far. I don't really know for sure, the GNU coding style is kinda vague. But if you find it let me know. My understanding (and I don't really know where I took this) was to apply this rule when you have a comment: if (something) /* Something. */ something (); vs if (something) { /* Something. */ something (); } The situation where it's really important, that the GNU coding standard talks about, is a if-else inside an if: if (foo) if (bar) win (); else lose (); vs if (foo) { if (bar) win (); else lose (); } It would be easy to get confused with the first one. But all the other ones are not a big deal. Simon