From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-106983-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 25635 invoked by alias); 6 Nov 2013 21:24:51 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 25609 invoked by uid 89); 6 Nov 2013 21:24:48 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_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; Wed, 06 Nov 2013 21:24:46 +0000
Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12])	by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rA6LOcXa009522	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK);	Wed, 6 Nov 2013 16:24:38 -0500
Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-29.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.29])	by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id rA6LOYZs004826	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);	Wed, 6 Nov 2013 16:24:37 -0500
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 21:28:00 -0000
From: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
To: Doug Evans <dje@google.com>
Cc: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>, gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>,        Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix Gold/strip discrepancies for PR 11786
Message-ID: <20131106212434.GA4193@host2.jankratochvil.net>
References: <yjt24n85x78h.fsf@ruffy.mtv.corp.google.com> <20131031154957.GA11260@host2.jankratochvil.net> <CADPb22QKBpYpmmZzeKJy7JWukpfkTQcYZDm+KeEkr6K_92LJ2A@mail.gmail.com> <87li13shk2.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <CADPb22QNaGzvagsDwgt2mAVOQw9kQxtKbnHKtnTbUMy-7xaJhw@mail.gmail.com> <20131105172219.GA21529@host2.jankratochvil.net> <CADPb22Tcg9g=pCG1q07hK6DkRnTQop7bZynqnoN+upiuDBWsZA@mail.gmail.com> <20131105180547.GA24004@host2.jankratochvil.net> <CADPb22S4ivEm=abcrxLBQwiB9yrB7CryvOBNi+rh-GdOpek5nQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CADPb22S4ivEm=abcrxLBQwiB9yrB7CryvOBNi+rh-GdOpek5nQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg00150.txt.bz2

On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 22:14:27 +0100, Doug Evans wrote:
> It will basically say tests are in general not required to following
> the GDB coding standards,

What is the reason for it?

I would find more logical to say tests should follow the same rules as GDB
code, unless there is a specific reason for it.  Such as importing an existing
external reproducer, machine generated output etc.

If GDB coding standards are not acceptable for testcases then it looks to me
as an indication the GDB coding standards should be changed.


Jan