From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (smtp.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.11]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E98B3854830 for ; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 15:11:35 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 7E98B3854830 Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.polymtl.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 16TFBQJo029070 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 29 Jul 2021 11:11:30 -0400 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp.polymtl.ca 16TFBQJo029070 Received: from [10.0.0.11] (192-222-157-6.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.157.6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CDA821E813; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 11:11:25 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] guile: fix make-value with pointer type To: George Barrett , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <5d3cf5e9-41bc-4d69-35b2-73a1256028ed@polymtl.ca> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 11:11:25 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Poly-FromMTA: (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) at Thu, 29 Jul 2021 15:11:26 +0000 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 15:11:37 -0000 On 2021-07-29 10:28 a.m., George Barrett wrote: > So leave the indentation in the patch as-is, but have a follow-up patch fixing > both? Alright. Yes, or a patch before that fixes the existing code and then your patch does the right thing. Nobody should get upset either way. Simon