Re: [PATCH RFC] PARAMS elimination - phase 2

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> > Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 16:23:53 -0700
> > From: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@cygnus.com>
> >
> > If you look carefully, you'll
> > notice that there are a few places where other fields within a struct
> > declaration have been reformatted.  I was torn between putting these
> > fields back the way they were prior to running indent and leaving them
> > in their newly indented state.  In the end I chose the latter option
> > of leaving them in their newly indented state.
> [snip]
> > -void (*target_overlay_update) PARAMS ((struct obj_section *))
> > -= simple_overlay_update;
> > +void (*target_overlay_update) (struct obj_section *) = simple_overlay_update;
> [snip]
> > -static struct partial_symbol *lookup_partial_symbol PARAMS
> > -  ((struct partial_symtab *, const char *,
> > -    int, namespace_enum));
> > +static struct partial_symbol *lookup_partial_symbol
> > +  (struct partial_symtab *, const char *, int, namespace_enum);
> [snip]
> > -    struct target_ops
> > -     *DONT_USE;                      /* formerly to_next */
> > +    struct target_ops *DONT_USE;     /* formerly to_next */

In the case of the above, it doesn't worry me (I really am the target
vector maintainer :-).

	Andrew