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] |
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.
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] |