From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 80070 invoked by alias); 22 Jun 2015 20:37:07 -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 80061 invoked by uid 89); 22 Jun 2015 20:37:07 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 22 Jun 2015 20:37:06 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF2453CA17A; Mon, 22 Jun 2015 20:37:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from host1.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-41.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.41]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t5MKb00f004813 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 22 Jun 2015 16:37:03 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 20:37:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Aleksandar Ristovski Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 09/10] Validate symbol file using build-id Message-ID: <20150622203700.GA25292@host1.jankratochvil.net> References: <20150614192542.18346.87859.stgit@host1.jankratochvil.net> <20150614192655.18346.17075.stgit@host1.jankratochvil.net> <20150621101644.GA12733@host1.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-06/txt/msg00446.txt.bz2 On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 14:55:14 +0200, Aleksandar Ristovski wrote: > Minor thing: it seems you did not put space before the comment block, but > in the practice most of such blocks are separated by an empty line from > the previous. > Example: > ... > } > +/* Boolean for command 'set solib-build-id-force'. */ > ... I guess it is some mail reading problem. The patch is: 1: }\n 2: \n 3:+/* Boolean for command 'set solib-build-id-force'. */\n 4:+static int solib_build_id_force = 0;\n 5:+\n 6:+/* Implement 'show solib-build-id-force'. */\n 7:+\n 8:+static void\n I believe you ask about the empty line 2 - but that one is there. The missing empty line between lines 3 and 4 and the present empty line 7 are conforming to: https://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/Internals%20GDB-C-Coding-Standards Jan