From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-86286-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 19884 invoked by alias); 18 Dec 2011 16:53:05 -0000
Received: (qmail 19808 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Dec 2011 16:53:03 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.8 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,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; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 16:52:49 +0000
Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout21.012.net.il by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0LWE00A00S1PMU00@a-mtaout21.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 18:52:26 +0200 (IST)
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.127.39.203]) by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0LWE00ARDS7CEW80@a-mtaout21.012.net.il>; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 18:52:26 +0200 (IST)
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 17:24:00 -0000
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Code formatting  [Re: [patch] s390*: watchpoints regression [repost]]
In-reply-to: <201112181352.pBIDq9D0023292@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
To: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
Cc: jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, brobecker@adacore.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, pedro@codesourcery.com
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Message-id: <83ty4xzusx.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <20111218115931.GA22952@host2.jankratochvil.net> <201112181352.pBIDq9D0023292@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
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: 2011-12/txt/msg00605.txt.bz2

> 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.