From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17761 invoked by alias); 30 Oct 2011 22:59:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 17750 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Oct 2011 22:59:07 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (83.163.83.176) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 22:58:53 +0000 Received: from glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.5/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9UMwSfb016695; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 23:58:28 +0100 (CET) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.5/8.14.3/Submit) id p9UMwQwi007876; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 23:58:26 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 00:11:00 -0000 Message-Id: <201110302258.p9UMwQwi007876@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: brobecker@adacore.com CC: gdbadmin@sourceware.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20111030195235.GC19246@adacore.com> (message from Joel Brobecker on Sun, 30 Oct 2011 15:52:35 -0400) Subject: Re: New ARI warning Sat Oct 29 01:55:04 UTC 2011 References: <20111029015504.GA24159@sourceware.org> <20111030195235.GC19246@adacore.com> Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-10/txt/msg00811.txt.bz2 > Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 15:52:35 -0400 > From: Joel Brobecker > > > > gdb/linux-nat.c:3424: comment: GNU/Linux: Do not use 'Linux', instead use 'Linux kernel' or 'GNU/Linux system'; comments should clearly differentiate between the two (this test assumes that word 'Linux' appears on the same line as the word 'GNU' or 'kernel' or a kernel version > > gdb/linux-nat.c:3424: other than the leader exec'd. On an exec, the Linux > > I wonder if we want to consider the idea of getting rid of this rule > from the ARI... In this case, the comment correctly says "Linux kernel", > except that the "kernel" part is on the next line... It's not the first > time that this rule triggers unnecessarily, hence the suggestion. The rule is silly; I've never cared about the whole GNU/Linux politics anyway,