From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24709 invoked by alias); 8 Aug 2003 13:07:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 24696 invoked from network); 8 Aug 2003 13:07:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta03bw.bigpond.com) (144.135.24.147) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Aug 2003 13:07:33 -0000 Received: from bubble.local ([144.135.24.72]) by mta03bw.email.bigpond.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.14 (built Mar 18 2003)) with SMTP id <0HJA00ADGXSJMR@mta03bw.email.bigpond.com> for binutils@sources.redhat.com; Fri, 08 Aug 2003 23:07:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from cpe-144-136-188-60.sa.bigpond.net.au ([144.136.188.60]) by bwmam02bpa.bigpond.com(MAM REL_3_3_2c 17/1840105); Fri, 08 Aug 2003 23:07:31 +0000 Received: (qmail 4839 invoked by uid 179); Fri, 08 Aug 2003 13:07:31 +0000 Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2003 13:07:00 -0000 From: Alan Modra Subject: Re: Patches to move cgen files to C90 with prototypes In-reply-to: To: Nick Clifton Cc: "Frank Ch. Eigler" , binutils@sources.redhat.com, cgen@sources.redhat.com Mail-followup-to: Nick Clifton , "Frank Ch. Eigler" , binutils@sources.redhat.com, cgen@sources.redhat.com Message-id: <20030808130731.GQ27145@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i References: <20030807001021.GA31218@tiktok.the-meissners.org> <16177.39941.684697.94934@casey.transmeta.com> <20030807004426.GA31603@tiktok.the-meissners.org> <20030808092618.GP27145@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au> <20030808121529.GB27175@redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2003-08/txt/msg00125.txt.bz2 On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 01:47:43PM +0100, Nick Clifton wrote: > Hi Frank, > > > Given that such mechanical conversions end up being done en-masse for > > all the functions in a given file, anyone wanting to know those things > > could find the single line > > * file.c: c90-ized. > > and understand. > > Yes that would be fair. > > Let me put it this way. I am not going to reject reformatting patches > just because the ChangeLog entry does not mention every function by > name. If the submitter has gone to the trouble of naming the > functions then that is great, but I am not going to insist on it. Oh good. I was going to mention the other downside to insisting on per-function ChangeLog entries for C90 conversions is that patches might not be submitted.. -- Alan Modra IBM OzLabs - Linux Technology Centre