> Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 18:45:10 +0100
> From: Otto Moerbeek <o...@drijf.net>
> 
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 03:59:41PM +0100, Franco Fichtner wrote:
> 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > found this still lingering in my tree. Still trying to figure out
> > the best workflow for sending patches. Not sure if this adheres
> > to the standards.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Franco
> > ---
> >  share/man/man3/tree.3 | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/share/man/man3/tree.3 b/share/man/man3/tree.3
> > index bb9a5b2..f4a410c 100644
> > --- a/share/man/man3/tree.3
> > +++ b/share/man/man3/tree.3
> > @@ -499,7 +499,7 @@ intcmp(struct node *e1, struct node *e2)
> >  }
> >  
> >  RB_HEAD(inttree, node) head = RB_INITIALIZER(&head);
> > -RB_GENERATE(inttree, node, entry, intcmp)
> > +RB_GENERATE(inttree, node, entry, intcmp);
> >  
> >  int testdata[] = {
> >     20, 16, 17, 13, 3, 6, 1, 8, 2, 4, 10, 19, 5, 9, 12, 15, 18,
> > -- 
> 
> I don't agree. RB_GENERATE creates a function definition, and those are
> not followed by a semicolon. It would just create an empty declaration.

On the other hand adding the semicolon helps editors to auto-indent
the code.

Reply via email to