From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-13643-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 5107 invoked by alias); 3 May 2003 09:54:17 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 4767 invoked from network); 3 May 2003 09:54:14 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com) (193.131.176.54)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 3 May 2003 09:54:14 -0000
Received: from pc960.cambridge.arm.com (pc960.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.205.4])
	by cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA25383;
	Sat, 3 May 2003 10:54:13 +0100 (BST)
Received: from pc960.cambridge.arm.com (rearnsha@localhost)
	by pc960.cambridge.arm.com (8.11.6/8.9.3) with ESMTP id h439sDl04926;
	Sat, 3 May 2003 10:54:13 +0100
Message-Id: <200305030954.h439sDl04926@pc960.cambridge.arm.com>
X-Authentication-Warning: pc960.cambridge.arm.com: rearnsha owned process doing -bs
To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>
cc: Mark Kettenis <kettenis@chello.nl>, gdb@sources.redhat.com,
        Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com
Reply-To: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com
Organization: ARM Ltd.
X-Telephone: +44 1223 400569 (direct+voicemail), +44 1223 400400 (switchbd)
X-Fax: +44 1223 400410
X-Address: ARM Ltd., 110 Fulbourn Road, Cherry Hinton, Cambridge CB1 9NJ.
Subject: Re: Coding style 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 02 May 2003 14:46:27 EDT."
             <3EB2BD03.8070407@redhat.com> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Sat, 03 May 2003 09:54:00 -0000
From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com>
X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00026.txt.bz2


> makes sense, but when contracted into:
> 
> > int
> > max_register_size (struct gdbarch *gdbarch)
> > {
> >   struct regcache_descr *descr = regcache_descr (gdbarch);
> > 
> >   return descr->max_register_size;
> > }
> 
> or:
> 
> > int
> > max_register_size (struct gdbarch *gdbarch)
> > {
> >   struct regcache_descr *descr = regcache_descr (gdbarch);
> >   return descr->max_register_size;
> > }
> 
> things get pretty arbitrary.  Is "descr" a declaration or code body?

I find the break helpful to delimit the extent of the declarations.  I'm 
not too bothered if there is code in the declarations, provided it's 
straight-forward initializations, not complex conditional operations and 
the like.

R.