From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20146 invoked by alias); 26 Mar 2018 17:39:23 -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 19851 invoked by uid 89); 26 Mar 2018 17:39:23 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= 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 ESMTP; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 17:39:22 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F6EB2F30B7 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 17:39:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from theo.uglyboxes.com (ovpn04.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.4]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D885818EF3 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 17:39:20 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove struct keyword from section_addr_info To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20180323203608.8939-1-keiths@redhat.com> <94d734b2-fe5d-ee8e-79fe-889dec5ab09e@simark.ca> From: Keith Seitz Message-ID: <59279fe2-37c0-9dba-1165-0d4aecda7163@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 17:39:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <94d734b2-fe5d-ee8e-79fe-889dec5ab09e@simark.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-03/txt/msg00536.txt.bz2 On 03/23/2018 07:45 PM, Simon Marchi wrote: >> * symfile.c (place_section): Remove "struct" from section_addr_info >> in comment. >> * windows-nat.c (struct safe_symbol_file_add_args) : Likewise. > > The "Likewise" is not really accurate, since the second entry isn't changing > a comment like the first one. But otherwise LGTM (I would have considered it > as pretty obvious). Bah, I can't believe I did that. I've edited the ChangeLog and pushed the patch. Keith