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: [HTML] Add new C++ access check rules to changes.html (PR 14949)

From: "Giovanni Bajo" <giovannibajo at libero dot it>
To: "Gerald Pfeifer" <gp at suse dot de>
Cc: <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 02:02:25 +0200
Subject: Re: [HTML] Add new C++ access check rules to changes.html (PR 14949)
References: <239d01c44ee3$1d08b870$444e2a97@bagio> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0406101649280.4636@lifschitz.suse.de>

Gerald Pfeifer wrote:

> Do we really need all these "(void)"s instead of just "()"?
> Personally, I prefer the latter.

Not really, it's just a matter of style. I am committing the patch without the
voids.

Giovanni Bajo

References:
- [HTML] Add new C++ access check rules to changes.html (PR 14949)
  - From: Giovanni Bajo
- Re: [HTML] Add new C++ access check rules to changes.html (PR 14949)
  - From: Gerald Pfeifer

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