From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-79608-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 1252 invoked by alias); 14 Mar 2011 13:06:14 -0000
Received: (qmail 1244 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Mar 2011 13:06:14 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,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; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 13:06:10 +0000
Received: from eliz by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.71)	(envelope-from <eliz@gnu.org>)	id 1Pz7TM-0000Pw-3x; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 09:06:08 -0400
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 13:27:00 -0000
Message-Id: <E1Pz7TM-0000Pw-3x@fencepost.gnu.org>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, pierre.muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr
In-reply-to: <201103141251.31400.pedro@codesourcery.com> (message from Pedro	Alves on Mon, 14 Mar 2011 12:51:31 +0000)
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> <201103141213.43979.pedro@codesourcery.com> <E1Pz6z3-0006vZ-Cl@fencepost.gnu.org> <201103141251.31400.pedro@codesourcery.com>
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/msg00721.txt.bz2

> From: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
> Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 12:51:31 +0000
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org,
>  pierre.muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr
> 
> > extern whatever_type foo (type1_t,
> >        		     	  type2_t, const char **, foobar_t);
> > 
> > not like Pierre originally suggested.
> > 
> > That is, let the left paren and at least one argument be on the same
> > line as the function name.
> 
> I'm fine with your suggestion, and in fact it's my preference
> as well.  However, there _are_ cases where you just can't do that,
> because the return type + function name + parameter end up being
> too long for a single line.

What's wrong with leaving a single long line in such cases?  They are
supposed to be very rare (if typedefs are used for complex function
arguments).