From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 119808 invoked by alias); 29 Oct 2015 17:58:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 119796 invoked by uid 89); 29 Oct 2015 17:58:06 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,MISSING_MIMEOLE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mailout12.t-online.de Received: from mailout12.t-online.de (HELO mailout12.t-online.de) (194.25.134.22) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 29 Oct 2015 17:58:05 +0000 Received: from fwd20.aul.t-online.de (fwd20.aul.t-online.de [172.20.26.140]) by mailout12.t-online.de (Postfix) with SMTP id 1BEF02B37A7; Thu, 29 Oct 2015 18:58:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from spica06.aul.t-online.de (ZwI3rBZXghb9rZEHo+e+u73Q2iG9sZvePBYGJG27awyUFTZoXX0mn5z47Cu2JE+ZXh@[172.20.102.127]) by fwd20.aul.t-online.de with esmtp id 1ZrrSP-0f5A1o0; Thu, 29 Oct 2015 18:57:49 +0100 Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 17:59:00 -0000 From: "bernds_cb1@t-online.de" Reply-To: "bernds_cb1@t-online.de" To: David Malcolm , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" Cc: David Malcolm Message-ID: <1446141469650.378795.e25f2599cc7eaccdcd71a0a476fea4c8215d89ae@spica.telekom.de> In-Reply-To: <1446137381-32748-2-git-send-email-dmalcolm@redhat.com> References: <1446137381-32748-1-git-send-email-dmalcolm@redhat.com> <1446137381-32748-2-git-send-email-dmalcolm@redhat.com> Subject: AW: [PATCH 1/4] -Wmisleading-indentation: don't warn in presence of entirely blank lines MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-10/txt/msg03254.txt.bz2 -----Original-Nachricht----- Betreff: [PATCH 1/4] -Wmisleading-indentation: don't warn in presence of entirely blank lines Datum: 2015-10-29T17:49:38+0100 Von: "David Malcolm" <dmalcolm@redhat.com> > In each case, a blank line separated the guarded code from followup code > that wasn't guarded, and to my eyes, the blank line makes the meaning of > the badly-indented code sufficiently clear that it seems unjustified to > issue a -Wmisleading-indentation warning. I think you could (barely) make a case for the last one being ok, but I disagree fairly strongly about the other two cases - they are clearly misindented, so why wouldn't we warn? Bernd