This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Fix PR28516 (Arm nested function ICE)

From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
To: Paul Brook <paul at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 18:22:25 -0400
Subject: Re: Fix PR28516 (Arm nested function ICE)
References: <200609191419.19477.paul@codesourcery.com> <4511B3B4.1040806@codesourcery.com> <200609202313.44511.paul@codesourcery.com>

Paul Brook wrote:

Least substantive comment of the day: I think the coding standards say
that you should remove the braces, since you've only got a single
dependent statement.  (The comment doesn't count.)
Hmm, I can't find anything definitive. My personal preference is to include the braces if the block is more than one source line, especially when preceded by a multi-line conditional.

OK. I'm certainly not worried. :-)

--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713

References:
- Fix PR28516 (Arm nested function ICE)
  - From: Paul Brook
- Re: Fix PR28516 (Arm nested function ICE)
  - From: Mark Mitchell
- Re: Fix PR28516 (Arm nested function ICE)
  - From: Paul Brook

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]