From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-106911-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 25341 invoked by alias); 5 Nov 2013 17:29:09 -0000
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
Received: (qmail 25328 invoked by uid 89); 5 Nov 2013 17:29:08 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2
X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com
Received: from Unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 17:28:05 +0000
Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22])	by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rA5HRvOg006210	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK);	Tue, 5 Nov 2013 12:27:57 -0500
Received: from barimba (ovpn-113-94.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.94])	by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rA5HRuH8019081	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);	Tue, 5 Nov 2013 12:27:56 -0500
From: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
To: Doug Evans <dje@google.com>
Cc: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>,        gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>,        Cary Coutant <ccoutant@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix Gold/strip discrepancies for PR 11786
References: <yjt24n85x78h.fsf@ruffy.mtv.corp.google.com>	<20131031154957.GA11260@host2.jankratochvil.net>	<CADPb22QKBpYpmmZzeKJy7JWukpfkTQcYZDm+KeEkr6K_92LJ2A@mail.gmail.com>	<87li13shk2.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>	<CADPb22QNaGzvagsDwgt2mAVOQw9kQxtKbnHKtnTbUMy-7xaJhw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 17:32:00 -0000
In-Reply-To: <CADPb22QNaGzvagsDwgt2mAVOQw9kQxtKbnHKtnTbUMy-7xaJhw@mail.gmail.com>	(Doug Evans's message of "Tue, 5 Nov 2013 09:04:38 -0800")
Message-ID: <87ob5yrc6c.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg00078.txt.bz2

>> In this case, "()" is not idiomatic C, whereas "(void)" is.
>> This is not the same as a coding style rule.

Doug> I'm not sure how to read this.

Feel free to ignore it.
I think this thread already outweighs its utility.
It's fine to leave the test case as you wrote it.

Doug> Is this an argument for requiring (void) in all testsuite C function
Doug> definitions?

No.

Tom