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: [PATCH] [ARM] Remove field syscall_next_pc in struct gdbarch_tdep

From: Antoine Tremblay <antoine dot tremblay at ericsson dot com>
To: Yao Qi <qiyaoltc at gmail dot com>
Cc: <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 08:57:31 -0500
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [ARM] Remove field syscall_next_pc in struct gdbarch_tdep
Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
References: <1452704004-6821-1-git-send-email-yao dot qi at linaro dot org> <5696A385 dot 5090702 at ericsson dot com> <8660ywv60q dot fsf at gmail dot com> <56979D96 dot 80602 at ericsson dot com> <861t9kuviv dot fsf at gmail dot com>



On 01/14/2016 08:43 AM, Yao Qi wrote:

Antoine Tremblay <antoine.tremblay@ericsson.com> writes:

Maybe it's only in the email ? but it seems like it's

static CORE_ADDR
   arm_linux_get_next_pcs_syscall_next_pc (struct arm_get_next_pcs *self,

When it should be :

static CORE_ADDR
arm_linux_get_next_pcs_syscall_next_pc (struct arm_get_next_pcs *self,


No, it is intended.  We don't write declaration at column zero.  See
https://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/Internals%20GDB-C-Coding-Standards


Right by bad, thanks,

Antoine

References:
- [PATCH] [ARM] Remove field syscall_next_pc in struct gdbarch_tdep
  - From: Yao Qi
- Re: [PATCH] [ARM] Remove field syscall_next_pc in struct gdbarch_tdep
  - From: Antoine Tremblay
- Re: [PATCH] [ARM] Remove field syscall_next_pc in struct gdbarch_tdep
  - From: Yao Qi
- Re: [PATCH] [ARM] Remove field syscall_next_pc in struct gdbarch_tdep
  - From: Antoine Tremblay
- Re: [PATCH] [ARM] Remove field syscall_next_pc in struct gdbarch_tdep
  - From: Yao Qi

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