From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 102015 invoked by alias); 10 Oct 2016 23:26:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 101915 invoked by uid 89); 10 Oct 2016 23:26:03 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 10 Oct 2016 23:26:02 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7BC6E80083; Mon, 10 Oct 2016 23:26:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u9ANQ00v032280; Mon, 10 Oct 2016 19:26:00 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFA 06/22] Introduce scoped_minimal_symbol_reader To: Tom Tromey References: <1474949330-4307-1-git-send-email-tom@tromey.com> <1474949330-4307-7-git-send-email-tom@tromey.com> <8343d689-83b9-646f-6503-d4d19a3d52ba@redhat.com> <87vawzolcj.fsf@tromey.com> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 23:26:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87vawzolcj.fsf@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-10/txt/msg00238.txt.bz2 On 10/11/2016 12:06 AM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: > > Pedro> GCC eschews using // comments, to avoid ending up with a mixbag > Pedro> of styles. Maybe we should follow suit? > > I don't remember - did you want me to change this or not? > I prefer "//" comments but it's up to you. I'd prefer to change it for the sake of consistency. A single comment in a different style in between other comments stands out as odd to me. For tail-end single-line comments, like } // namespace gdb it doesn't look that odd to me. AFAICS, these are the cases where gcc uses // too, for the most part. Thanks, Pedro Alves