From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
Cc: mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, brobecker@adacore.com,
gdb-patches@sourceware.org, pedro@codesourcery.com
Subject: Re: Code formatting [Re: [patch] s390*: watchpoints regression [repost]]
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 18:45:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <83r501zrjw.fsf@gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20111218172418.GA30764@host2.jankratochvil.net>
> Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 18:24:18 +0100
> From: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
> Cc: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>, brobecker@adacore.com,
> gdb-patches@sourceware.org, pedro@codesourcery.com
>
> You dropped the important part about "still going through the shell", that was
> the surprising fact to note there.
>
> If you do not drop that shell part of the text the Pedro's text becomes
> shorter, therefore more clear.
Then don't drop it. I think I dropped it by mistake. Anyway, it was
just an example of how to reword a comment to avoid the problem that
started this thread.
> Also you just describe
>
> /* This is the main thread still going through the shell, or, no
> watchpoint has been set yet. */
> ->
> /* Nothing else to do if this is the main thread, or if no
> watchpoints have been set yet. */
>
> additionally the "return" clause there. "return" does not need any comment.
"Nothing else to do" explains _why_ we return, which is the point of
the comment, isn't it?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-12-18 18:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-12-17 12:22 [obv] s390*: Fix build regression, remains execution regression Jan Kratochvil
2011-12-17 12:33 ` Pedro Alves
2011-12-17 19:37 ` [patch] s390*: watchpoints regression [Re: [obv] s390*: Fix build regression] Jan Kratochvil
2011-12-17 19:44 ` Pedro Alves
2011-12-17 19:45 ` Jan Kratochvil
2011-12-17 19:56 ` [patch] s390*: watchpoints regression [repost] Jan Kratochvil
2011-12-17 20:13 ` Pedro Alves
2011-12-17 20:35 ` Pedro Alves
2011-12-17 21:08 ` Jan Kratochvil
2011-12-18 6:37 ` Joel Brobecker
2011-12-18 10:11 ` Jan Kratochvil
2011-12-18 11:38 ` Joel Brobecker
2011-12-18 12:38 ` Code formatting [Re: [patch] s390*: watchpoints regression [repost]] Jan Kratochvil
2011-12-18 15:50 ` Mark Kettenis
2011-12-18 17:24 ` Eli Zaretskii
2011-12-18 17:57 ` Jan Kratochvil
2011-12-18 18:45 ` Eli Zaretskii [this message]
2011-12-20 14:29 ` Pedro Alves
2011-12-18 11:42 ` [patch] s390*: watchpoints regression [repost] Eli Zaretskii
2011-12-19 21:37 ` Ulrich Weigand
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=83r501zrjw.fsf@gnu.org \
--to=eliz@gnu.org \
--cc=brobecker@adacore.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=jan.kratochvil@redhat.com \
--cc=mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl \
--cc=pedro@codesourcery.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox