From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24813 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2014 19:21:14 -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 24754 invoked by uid 89); 16 Jan 2014 19:21:13 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 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; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 19:21:13 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s0GJLAqS011051 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 16 Jan 2014 14:21:10 -0500 Received: from psique (ovpn-113-91.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.91]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s0GJL5wq018629 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 16 Jan 2014 14:21:07 -0500 From: Sergio Durigan Junior To: Pedro Alves Cc: Simon Marchi , GDB Patches Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add comments to gdbarch_address_class_name_to_type_flags References: <52D8293B.6060701@ericsson.com> <52D82EDF.5010402@redhat.com> X-URL: http://www.redhat.com Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 19:21:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <52D82EDF.5010402@redhat.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Thu, 16 Jan 2014 19:11:27 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-01/txt/msg00646.txt.bz2 On Thursday, January 16 2014, Pedro Alves wrote: > On 01/16/2014 06:47 PM, Simon Marchi wrote: >> +/* Return the appropriate type_flags for the supplied address class. >> + This function should return 1 if the address class was recognized and >> + type_flags was set, zero otherwise. > > Say true/false instead of 1/zero. Sorry, but don't you think this is too nitpicking? And is also the first time I remember seeing such requirement. I myself use "1/zero" all the time, and I don't think this is an issue at all. But I don't want to be meta-nitpicking, of course. -- Sergio