[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] Fix mismatched parens in previous commit
From: |
Jim Meyering |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] Fix mismatched parens in previous commit |
Date: |
Mon, 11 Oct 2010 10:21:09 +0200 |
Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> Pushed as an obvious fix to rebalance parentheses.
>
> * lib/spawn.in.h (verify_POSIX_SPAWN_USEVFORK_no_overlap): Fix mismatched
> parens.
> ---
> ChangeLog | 6 ++++++
> lib/spawn.in.h | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/ChangeLog b/ChangeLog
> index 6a56a31..d32d173 100644
> --- a/ChangeLog
> +++ b/ChangeLog
> @@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
> +2010-10-11 Gary V. Vaughan <address@hidden>
> +
> + Fix mismatched parens in previous commit
> + * lib/spawn.in.h (verify_POSIX_SPAWN_USEVFORK_no_overlap): Fix
> mismatched
> + parens.
Thanks for the quick fix.
When feasible, please list the name of the affected
module or file name at the beginning of the one-line summary.
(i.e., when only one or a few are affected)
That makes it easier to know what's affected solely from the summary.
spawn.in.h: fix mismatched parens in previous commit
The added parenthesis in your correction made it so the
continued lines were no longer properly indented.
I've fixed that with this additional change:
>From 2adeeb98ba9c3a10f0a63dd65a6f5d726ce55802 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jim Meyering <address@hidden>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 10:17:12 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] spawn.in.h: make indentation consistent with parentheses
* lib/spawn.in.h (verify_POSIX_SPAWN_USEVFORK_no_overlap):
Make indentation consistent with parentheses.
---
ChangeLog | 6 ++++++
lib/spawn.in.h | 6 +++---
2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/ChangeLog b/ChangeLog
index 9b0372d..1f5fd32 100644
--- a/ChangeLog
+++ b/ChangeLog
@@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
+2010-10-11 Jim Meyering <address@hidden>
+
+ spawn.in.h: make indentation consistent with parentheses
+ * lib/spawn.in.h (verify_POSIX_SPAWN_USEVFORK_no_overlap):
+ Make indentation consistent with parentheses.
+
2010-10-11 Gary V. Vaughan <address@hidden>
Fix mismatched parens in previous commit
diff --git a/lib/spawn.in.h b/lib/spawn.in.h
index d49ea6b..44bc110 100644
--- a/lib/spawn.in.h
+++ b/lib/spawn.in.h
@@ -148,9 +148,9 @@ typedef struct
+ 1)
typedef int verify_POSIX_SPAWN_USEVFORK_no_overlap
[(((POSIX_SPAWN_RESETIDS | POSIX_SPAWN_SETPGROUP
- | POSIX_SPAWN_SETSIGDEF | POSIX_SPAWN_SETSIGMASK
- | POSIX_SPAWN_SETSCHEDPARAM | POSIX_SPAWN_SETSCHEDULER)
- & POSIX_SPAWN_USEVFORK) == 0)
+ | POSIX_SPAWN_SETSIGDEF | POSIX_SPAWN_SETSIGMASK
+ | POSIX_SPAWN_SETSCHEDPARAM | POSIX_SPAWN_SETSCHEDULER)
+ & POSIX_SPAWN_USEVFORK) == 0)
? 1 : -1];
--
1.7.3.1.104.gc752e
- Re: [PATCH] time: enforce recent POSIX ruling that time_t is integral, (continued)
- Re: [PATCH] time: enforce recent POSIX ruling that time_t is integral, Bruno Haible, 2010/10/09
- Re: [PATCH] time: enforce recent POSIX ruling that time_t is integral, Paul Eggert, 2010/10/09
- Re: [PATCH] time: enforce recent POSIX ruling that time_t is integral, Bruno Haible, 2010/10/10
- Re: [PATCH] time: enforce recent POSIX ruling that time_t is integral, Paul Eggert, 2010/10/10
- Re: [PATCH] time: enforce recent POSIX ruling that time_t is integral, Paul Eggert, 2010/10/10
- Re: [PATCH] time: enforce recent POSIX ruling that time_t is integral, Bruno Haible, 2010/10/10
- Re: [PATCH] time: enforce recent POSIX ruling that time_t is integral, Paul Eggert, 2010/10/10
- Re: [PATCH] time: enforce recent POSIX ruling that time_t is integral, Bruno Haible, 2010/10/10
- Re: [PATCH] time: enforce recent POSIX ruling that time_t is integral, Paul Eggert, 2010/10/10
- [PATCH] Fix mismatched parens in previous commit, Gary V. Vaughan, 2010/10/11
- Re: [PATCH] Fix mismatched parens in previous commit,
Jim Meyering <=
- Re: [PATCH] Fix mismatched parens in previous commit, Gary V. Vaughan, 2010/10/11
- Re: [PATCH] Fix mismatched parens in previous commit, Paul Eggert, 2010/10/11
- [PATCH] rewrite int foo[2*X-1] to verify(X) or to int foo[X?1:-1], Paul Eggert, 2010/10/10
- Re: [PATCH] rewrite int foo[2*X-1] to verify(X) or to int foo[X?1:-1], Bruno Haible, 2010/10/10
- Re: [PATCH] rewrite int foo[2*X-1] to verify(X) or to int foo[X?1:-1], Paul Eggert, 2010/10/10