This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc 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] Unbound alloca in crypt routines

From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
To: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>
Cc: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at systemhalted dot org>, Marek Polacek <polacek at redhat dot com>, libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 12:19:55 -0600
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Unbound alloca in crypt routines
References: <4F74940F.1010702@redhat.com> <20120329171148.GA8706@redhat.com> <4F749BC8.8080104@redhat.com> <CADZpyiwNmf6JPVDY_xdheJ7pW0uja-E77BBOUVVrFBYA8U_x4g@mail.gmail.com> <20120329175536.3577C2C08B@topped-with-meat.com>

On 03/29/2012 11:55 AM, Roland McGrath wrote:

Not strictly necessary.  However, I've found that keeping the if and else
clauses at the same indention level makes the code easier to read.  I'll
defer to the maintainers on this.

I agree. I prefer the braces.


The existing style, and normal GNU style, has always been not to use
superfluous braces.  I see no reason to change that now.

OK. Superfluous braces removed.

jeff

References:
- [PATCH] Unbound alloca in crypt routines
  - From: Jeff Law
- Re: [PATCH] Unbound alloca in crypt routines
  - From: Marek Polacek
- Re: [PATCH] Unbound alloca in crypt routines
  - From: Jeff Law
- Re: [PATCH] Unbound alloca in crypt routines
  - From: Carlos O'Donell
- Re: [PATCH] Unbound alloca in crypt routines
  - From: Roland McGrath

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