From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2590 invoked by alias); 8 Aug 2003 08:16:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cgen-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cgen-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 2476 invoked from network); 8 Aug 2003 08:16:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Aug 2003 08:16:41 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h788Gdt03393; Fri, 8 Aug 2003 04:16:39 -0400 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h788Gdx12822; Fri, 8 Aug 2003 04:16:39 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain.redhat.com (vpn50-3.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.3]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h788G0720416; Fri, 8 Aug 2003 04:16:23 -0400 To: cgen-mail@the-meissners.org Cc: binutils@sources.redhat.com, cgen@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Patches to move cgen files to C90 with prototypes References: <20030807001021.GA31218@tiktok.the-meissners.org> <16177.39941.684697.94934@casey.transmeta.com> <20030807004426.GA31603@tiktok.the-meissners.org> From: Nick Clifton Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2003 08:18:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20030807004426.GA31603@tiktok.the-meissners.org> (Michael Meissner's message of "Wed, 6 Aug 2003 20:44:26 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1001 (Gnus v5.10.1) Emacs/21.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-q3/txt/msg00040.txt.bz2 Hi Michael, Hi Doug, >> > 2003-08-06 Michael Meissner >> > >> > ... massively large changelog entry, >> > ... especially for just a k&r -> c90 substitution >> >> fwiw, I think people think they're under far too much pressure to >> write anally correct changelog entries before a patch will get accepted. > > I don't care one way or another, as I can rewrite it however people want. I do > recall it came up in GCC about a year ago, with people complaining that they > wanted to be able to grep for each function modified, and in particular didn't > want things like: > > * ({put,get}_some_function): Blah, blah, blah. > >> Nick, in this particular case, does one really have to mention every function? >> How about this instead? No I think that the functions should be mentioned. I have objection to listing them together though, rather than one per line. ie something like this would be OK: * cgen-dis.in (print_normal): Remove PARAMS macro. Use void * instead of PTR. (print_address, print_keyword, print_insn_normal, print_insn, default_print_insn, read_insn): Likewise. (print_normal): Prototype definition. Use void * instead of PTR. (print_address, print_keyword, print_insn_normal, read_insn, print_insn, default_print_insn, print_insn_@arch@): Likewise. (I prefer "likewise" to "ditto" but this is a personal thing). Cheers Nick