Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> writes:
> Another problem is that there is one thing in our tree that looks like
> a non-cast under the new rule, but it actually expands to a type name,
> so now we get that wrong! (I mean, unpatched indent doesn't really
> understand it either, it thinks it's a cast, but at least it knows the
> following * is not a binary operator):
> - STACK_OF(X509_NAME) *root_cert_list = NULL;
> + STACK_OF(X509_NAME) * root_cert_list = NULL;
> That's a macro from an OpenSSL header. Not sure what to do about that.
If we get that wrong, but a hundred other places look better,
I'm not too fussed about it.
regards, tom lane