This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [RFA]: Patch for ia64-tdep.c to cross-compile


Eli Zaretskii wrote:
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:30:15 -0500
From: Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn@redhat.com>

If this is an obvious patch, shouldn't we have some coding rule
somewhere to cover it?  It certainly isn't obvious out of the GDB
context, i.e. not a standard coding practice.

Eli,


Do you want me to hold off on checking this in or do you just wish to discuss whether such a patch should be marked as obvious in the future?


I don't think you need to hold off; sorry that I wasn't more clear.


Thanks. I just wanted to be sure before checking it in. The patch has been checked in.


What I wanted to discuss is whether we need to put some text somewhere
that includes the use of paddr* functions in the GDB coding standards.
Then it would be clear that fixing any deviation from that falls under
the obvious fix rule.



Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]