From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 121011 invoked by alias); 23 Nov 2016 23:23:41 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 120991 invoked by uid 89); 23 Nov 2016 23:23:39 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=0.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_20,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=baldwin, Baldwin, whjen, sk:Wmismat X-HELO: mail.baldwin.cx Received: from bigwig.baldwin.cx (HELO mail.baldwin.cx) (96.47.65.170) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 23 Nov 2016 23:23:37 +0000 Received: from ralph.baldwin.cx (c-73-231-226-104.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [73.231.226.104]) by mail.baldwin.cx (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 973CF10A9D7; Wed, 23 Nov 2016 18:23:35 -0500 (EST) From: John Baldwin To: Simon Marchi Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Fix mismatched struct vs class tags. Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 23:23:00 -0000 Message-ID: <1829402.8oCIcIW1E7@ralph.baldwin.cx> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (FreeBSD/11.0-PRERELEASE; KDE/4.14.10; amd64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <7640c59773727c1d5d784f18663312ed@polymtl.ca> References: <20161123200652.89209-1-jhb@FreeBSD.org> <20161123200652.89209-2-jhb@FreeBSD.org> <7640c59773727c1d5d784f18663312ed@polymtl.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-11/txt/msg00735.txt.bz2 On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 03:58:11 PM Simon Marchi wrote: > On 2016-11-23 15:06, John Baldwin wrote: > > The 'collection_list' and 'number_or_range_parser' types were converted > > from structs to classes, but some code still used 'struct'. Fix all > > references to use 'class' which fixes -Wmismatched-tags warnings issued > > by clang. > > Whjen using the type in a parameter or variable declaration, should we > simply drop the keyword? > > For example: > > - struct collection_list *collect; > + collection_list *collect; > > That's the approach I took in my upcoming C++ patches, so I hope it's ok > :). I have also dropped the "enum" keyword when possible. Hmm. I don't see anything about this in the GCC C++ language conventions, so I will have to defer to others as far as what is the desired style here? (And we should document whatever style is chosen) -- John Baldwin