From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13172 invoked by alias); 18 May 2012 17:26:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 13163 invoked by uid 22791); 18 May 2012 17:26:54 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 18 May 2012 17:26:41 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E28B1C70B2; Fri, 18 May 2012 13:26:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 2O+-uvhDjqwj; Fri, 18 May 2012 13:26:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF7851C6D28; Fri, 18 May 2012 13:26:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8B8F0145616; Fri, 18 May 2012 10:26:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 17:26:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Tom Tromey Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] First scripts for ARI support inisde gdb tree Message-ID: <20120518172626.GN10253@adacore.com> References: <003c01cd33b2$b6225130$2266f390$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> <20120517131616.GD10253@adacore.com> <878vgqlhfv.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20120517203915.GH10253@adacore.com> <87wr49iori.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87wr49iori.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2012-05/txt/msg00697.txt.bz2 > Since it is working on the source, which is the same everywhere, I think > we can adopt a "zero fail" rule. For example perhaps whatever > exceptions there are to the rules could be marked in the source. > > That's just speculation though. I haven't looked at the ARI scripts. I think it is an interesting idea. If I understad the current state of affairs, the exceptions currently marked in the sources are valid exceptions, meaning that they are false positives and the scripts shouldn't have complained about them in the first place. For instances, the very few authorized calls to abort. But I like the idea nonetheless, because we could simply extend the exception mechanism to say that we accept this violation as a legacy thing. -- Joel