From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-75993-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 31341 invoked by alias); 8 Oct 2010 20:46:49 -0000
Received: (qmail 31333 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Oct 2010 20:46:48 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.9 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_SOFTFAIL
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mtaout21.012.net.il (HELO mtaout21.012.net.il) (80.179.55.169)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 20:46:41 +0000
Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout21.012.net.il by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0L9Z00D00OCN9600@a-mtaout21.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 22:46:38 +0200 (IST)
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.229.148.82]) by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0L9Z00D04ODP3M40@a-mtaout21.012.net.il>; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 22:46:38 +0200 (IST)
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 20:46:00 -0000
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] Fix overload resolution of int* vs void*
In-reply-to: <4CAF6B73.5090800@redhat.com>
To: sami wagiaalla <swagiaal@redhat.com>
Cc: tromey@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Message-id: <8339sgo1jl.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <4C7BCD42.9070308@redhat.com> <m362yrkgzj.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <4CAF6B73.5090800@redhat.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2010-10/txt/msg00158.txt.bz2

> Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 15:05:23 -0400
> From: sami wagiaalla <swagiaal@redhat.com>
> CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> 
> +  if (TYPE_NAME (a) && TYPE_NAME (b)
> +      && !strcmp (TYPE_NAME (a), TYPE_NAME (b)))
> +    return 1;

A minor stylistic nit: can we please use `strcmp (...) == 0' instead
of `!strcmp (...)'?  It will produce the same code, but is slightly
more readable.

Thanks.