From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gnu.wildebeest.org (wildebeest.demon.nl [212.238.236.112]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B4BA3857832 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 16:56:33 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 9B4BA3857832 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=klomp.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mark@klomp.org Received: from librem (188-206-76-12.mobile.kpn.net [188.206.76.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gnu.wildebeest.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 82D503000721; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 17:56:32 +0100 (CET) Received: by librem (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 59C79C100A; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 17:55:19 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 17:55:19 +0100 From: Mark Wielaard To: Jakub Jelinek Cc: dwz@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR27463 Accept DW_FORM_sdata for DW_AT_decl/call_file Message-ID: <20210226165519.GF3014@wildebeest.org> References: <1614355509-20606-1-git-send-email-mark@klomp.org> <20210226161233.GZ4020736@tucnak> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210226161233.GZ4020736@tucnak> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: dwz@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Dwz mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 16:56:35 -0000 On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 05:12:33PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 05:05:09PM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > case DW_FORM_data8: value = read_64 (ptr); handled = true; break; > > case DW_FORM_udata: > > value = read_uleb128 (ptr); handled = true; break; > > + case DW_FORM_sdata: > > + { > > + int64_t svalue = read_sleb128 (ptr); > > + if (svalue >= 0) > > + { > > + value = svalue; handled = true; break; > > Formatting, can you please put each of the 3 stmts on a separate line > (several times in the patch)? > The stmt1; stmt2; break; form is only used directly in switches > to save vertical space, but nested in {}s etc. it just looks weird. You are probably right. I did indeed do it to match the switch statements. But given that we do need brackets anyway to open/close the if/else blocks it makes sense to just write eacht statement on its own line. Fixed all 4 places (at least I was consistent :) And pushed. Thanks, Mark