From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28766 invoked by alias); 19 Dec 2013 13:02:43 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 28747 invoked by uid 89); 19 Dec 2013 13:02:42 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (83.163.83.176) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 13:02:40 +0000 Received: from glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.5/8.14.3) with ESMTP id rBJD2UMJ013854; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 14:02:30 +0100 (CET) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.5/8.14.3/Submit) id rBJD2UOJ010980; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 14:02:30 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 13:02:00 -0000 Message-Id: <201312191302.rBJD2UOJ010980@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: nickc@redhat.com CC: pierre.muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr, palves@redhat.com, asmwarrior@gmail.com, gdb@sourceware.org, binutils@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <52B2E8C4.3080208@redhat.com> (message from nick clifton on Thu, 19 Dec 2013 12:38:28 +0000) Subject: Re: [RFC-v2] BFD MinGW/Cygwin build error in bfd/peiXXgen.c References: <52B17083.7040404@gmail.com> <52B1738D.4010409@redhat.com> <002101cefbf1$7554b9a0$5ffe2ce0$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> <52B1E03E.9010002@redhat.com> <006c01cefcaf$bec215b0$3c464110$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> <52B2E8C4.3080208@redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2013-12/txt/msg00063.txt.bz2 > Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 12:38:28 +0000 > From: nick clifton > > > Another silly coding style question: Should there by a space > > between the address operator "&" and the variable or expression following? > > *sigh* There is no strict rule on this subject. Most people omit the > space, I include it. I feel that since we separate other operators from > their arguments we should do the same with &. I feel the same way about > the asterisk operator too, but not many people agree with me on that one > either. Spaces around binary operators, no spaces around unary operators. That's pretty much the universally accepted standard, and the one used by the official C standard. Everybody who thinks differently has been poisoned by C++ ;).