Re: [PATCH RFC] PARAMS elimination - phase 2

[Michael Snyder <msnyder at cygnus dot com>]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> [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).

I would tend to disagree.  In the first place, I like the 
single-line declarations better when there is no reason to 
break them up into two lines.  In the second place, we agreed
that the output of indent, suitably tweaked if necessary to 
conform to the GNU coding standard, would be our rule.

Michael