From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16992 invoked by alias); 8 Aug 2003 12:54:45 -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 16637 invoked from network); 8 Aug 2003 12:54:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Aug 2003 12:54:39 -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 h78Csdt17997; Fri, 8 Aug 2003 08:54:39 -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 h78Csbx07771; Fri, 8 Aug 2003 08:54:37 -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 h78CsT709190; Fri, 8 Aug 2003 08:54:36 -0400 To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" 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> <20030808092618.GP27145@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au> <20030808121529.GB27175@redhat.com> From: Nick Clifton Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2003 13:07:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20030808121529.GB27175@redhat.com> (Frank Ch. Eigler's message of "Fri, 8 Aug 2003 08:15:29 -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/msg00045.txt.bz2 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. Cheers Nick