This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: 68hc11/12/s12x/xgate patch - style question
- From: James Murray <jsm at jsm-net dot demon dot co dot uk>
- To: binutils at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 19:39:06 +0000
- Subject: Re: 68hc11/12/s12x/xgate patch - style question
- References: <1298845471.12108.12.camel@jsm2> <1299515895.3262.1.camel@jsm2> <4D7F247D.6070303@redhat.com> <1300201861.20997.3.camel@jsm2> <1324419607.8652.84.camel@jsm2> <CABZhLO-Ye-G1nYW1eqpdjnYG1W4zaKq+TvgzFBebJk4ash5mtg@mail.gmail.com> <1324423375.8652.94.camel@jsm2> <4EF36049.3050802@ipdatasys.com> <CABZhLO_RKXkcKRGH_b-f_iVYppcgBQ3XBf9STWjZeTCwrQJhzQ@mail.gmail.com> <1324575421.2430.42.camel@jsm2> <1325800936.20629.53.camel@jsm2> <4F0C4DFE.4050801@redhat.com> <1326210316.20629.199.camel@jsm2>
On Tue, 2012-01-10 at 15:45 +0000, James Murray wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-01-10 at 14:41 +0000, nick clifton wrote:
> *) There are some formatting problems. Ideally we like code that
> > follows the GNU Coding Standard:
>
I've read through the document and the main issues as-is are the ones
Nick already highlighted (brace style and space after function name.)
The document mentions that "indent" can apply the desired formatting.
It would be straightforward enough for me to do that, but then the patch
would also include any formatting changes to the existing code which
could obscure that functional changes.
So what do the maintainers prefer? Should the patch be just what I've
changed or should I use indent and reformat the whole of hc11 files I've
touched.
regards
James Murray