From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-79589-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 13862 invoked by alias); 13 Mar 2011 10:24:14 -0000
Received: (qmail 13854 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Mar 2011 10:24:14 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,TW_BJ,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from fencepost.gnu.org (HELO fencepost.gnu.org) (140.186.70.10)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 13 Mar 2011 10:24:09 +0000
Received: from eliz by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.71)	(envelope-from <eliz@gnu.org>)	id 1PyiT1-0005DR-16; Sun, 13 Mar 2011 06:24:07 -0400
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 19:39:00 -0000
Message-Id: <E1PyiT1-0005DR-16@fencepost.gnu.org>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: "Pierre Muller" <pierre.muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr>
CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <010f01cbe157$aebb5cb0$0c321610$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr>	(pierre.muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr)
Subject: Re: New ARI warning Sat Mar 12 01:53:29 UTC 2011
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References: <20110312015329.GA20179@sourceware.org> <010f01cbe157$aebb5cb0$0c321610$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr>
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: 2011-03/txt/msg00702.txt.bz2

> From: "Pierre Muller" <pierre.muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr>
> Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 09:21:35 +0100
> 
>   This is the consequence of the two new ARI rules I added:
> http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-03/msg00654.html
> 
>   As I just introduced these new rules,
> I felt that it would be cheating to
> use OBVIOUS rule as we normally do to fix 
> a ARI regression...
>   This is why I will submit shortly two patches
> to remove all those new warnings.

The rule to detect "()" without a "void" is fine, but why on Earth do
we need the other rule, about prototypes like this:

  int
  foo (bar);

This is a perfectly valid formatting.  In your patch, you modify long
prototypes like this as follows:

   extern struct hppa_objfile_private *
  -hppa_init_objfile_priv_data (struct objfile *objfile);
  +  hppa_init_objfile_priv_data (struct objfile *objfile);

But that is not a good idea, because if you type TAB in Emacs on the
line with the function name, Emacs will reindent the name to column
zero.  So I expect this rule to annoy us quite a bit, e.g. if someone
reindents a large region.

Can you tell why we need this?