Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
Cc: jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, 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 17:24:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <83ty4xzusx.fsf@gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201112181352.pBIDq9D0023292@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl>

> Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 14:52:09 +0100 (CET)
> From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
> CC: brobecker@adacore.com, eliz@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org,
>         pedro@codesourcery.com
> 
> > >     if ([...])
> > >       /* This is a comment that ...  */
> > >       return;
> > 
> > This is a bug from the first sight as there are two C statements attached to
> > an `if' conditional.  Two statements always need a block.  This is a bug.
> > 
> > I really do not have time to interrupt myself each time, several times
> > a minute, looking at the code starting examining what those two statements
> > semantically are, and therefore if they really require a block or not.
> 
> I agree with Jan here.

Any reasons why no one says anything about the alternative I
suggested?  AFAIU, it is free from all the disadvantages mentioned
here.


  reply	other threads:[~2011-12-18 16:53 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 [this message]
2011-12-18 17:57                           ` Jan Kratochvil
2011-12-18 18:45                             ` Eli Zaretskii
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=83ty4xzusx.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