This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org 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: RFC: DW_OP_call_frame_cfa, again

From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
To: Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>
Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 17:41:07 -0600
Subject: Re: RFC: DW_OP_call_frame_cfa, again
References: <m37hxauldt.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <m3skf6tu5i.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <e394668d0909011607j256661d2ue6a7c9ddf3fa6a49@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-to: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>

>>>>> "Doug" == Doug Evans <dje@google.com> writes:

Doug> I hate to nitpick on style issues (much :-)) but since this one
Doug> bothers me, and I'm not clear on what the rules are, and there are
Doug> clear rules for other things, I thought I'd bring it up.

Doug> IWBN IMHO to require a blank line between a function's comment and its
Doug> definition.  It helps readability (to me anyway).
Doug> I notice this patch has a mixture of both having the blank line and
Doug> not having it.

Yeah, I'm inconsistent about that.
I will fix it up.

Tom

References:
- Re: RFC: DW_OP_call_frame_cfa, again
  - From: Tom Tromey
- Re: RFC: DW_OP_call_frame_cfa, again
  - From: Doug Evans

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