This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH RFC] PARAMS elimination - phase 2
- To: kevinb at cygnus dot com
- Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] PARAMS elimination - phase 2
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at delorie dot com>
- Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 03:05:55 -0400 (EDT)
- CC: gdb-patches at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- References: <1000530232352.ZM5368@ocotillo.lan>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at is dot elta dot co dot il>
> Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 16:23:53 -0700
> From: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@cygnus.com>
>
> If you look carefully, you'll
> notice that there are a few places where other fields within a struct
> declaration have been reformatted. I was torn between putting these
> fields back the way they were prior to running indent and leaving them
> in their newly indented state. In the end I chose the latter option
> of leaving them in their newly indented state.
[snip]
> -void (*target_overlay_update) PARAMS ((struct obj_section *))
> -= simple_overlay_update;
> +void (*target_overlay_update) (struct obj_section *) = simple_overlay_update;
[snip]
> -static struct partial_symbol *lookup_partial_symbol PARAMS
> - ((struct partial_symtab *, const char *,
> - int, namespace_enum));
> +static struct partial_symbol *lookup_partial_symbol
> + (struct partial_symtab *, const char *, int, namespace_enum);
[snip]
> - struct target_ops
> - *DONT_USE; /* formerly to_next */
> + struct target_ops *DONT_USE; /* formerly to_next */
The above are a few of the examples of such a gratuitous
reformatting. I think they are evil and should be avoided at all
costs. They make it a PITA to apply patches sent by people who have
sources before the reformatting. Introducing changes that merely
reshuffle white space really doesn't make sense to me.
I vote against those whitespace changes (even though these are not
files I'm responsible for).