From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18100 invoked by alias); 5 Nov 2013 17:22:36 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 18090 invoked by uid 89); 5 Nov 2013 17:22:36 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_40,RDNS_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from Unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 17:22:31 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rA5HMN8l003830 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 5 Nov 2013 12:22:23 -0500 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-29.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.29]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id rA5HMJaO004579 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 5 Nov 2013 12:22:21 -0500 Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 17:23:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Doug Evans Cc: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches , Cary Coutant Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix Gold/strip discrepancies for PR 11786 Message-ID: <20131105172219.GA21529@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20131031154957.GA11260@host2.jankratochvil.net> <87li13shk2.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg00075.txt.bz2 On Tue, 05 Nov 2013 18:04:38 +0100, Doug Evans wrote: > I'm not sure how to read this. Primarily I do not understand if you really defend "()". "()" is wrong and obsolete syntax. Reason is that it does not check against passed parameters, making bugs more difficult to catch and therefore the code expensive to maintain. The real bug is that gdb/testsuite/ does not use the same CFLAGS like gdb/ does, including -Wmissing-prototypes. It would be nice to enable it there one day. But nowadays nobody is going to fix all the gdb/testsuite/ sources to make them compliant. But it is not right to (1) make the testsuite code more expensive to maintain, (2) needlessly different from the main GDB codebase code, (3) making the future work of enabling -Wmissing-prototypes for gdb/testsuite/ more expensive (if it ever happens). > It's ok by me, but it seems to me it's not a requirement today as > there are plenty of existing examples, Any existing code should be irrelevant, existing GDB code base is in a worse state than what should be required for new commits. > including recent ones. This is worse, I am aware of it. Just I do not want to spend more time catching such nitpicks when GDB has in several orders of magnitude more serious problems. Discussing such a clear thing like that "()" is forbidden seems also as a loss of time to me. C++ even does not know K&R prototype anymore so it will not even be possible in GDB anymore in some time, hopefully. Jan