> 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.