From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 70606 invoked by alias); 18 May 2018 19:03:51 -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 69082 invoked by uid 89); 18 May 2018 19:03:50 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_NUMSUBJECT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: rock.gnat.com Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 18 May 2018 19:03:49 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53745117770; Fri, 18 May 2018 15:03:48 -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 vLrX30p1heTW; Fri, 18 May 2018 15:03:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20E51116D46; Fri, 18 May 2018 15:03:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 76C6F8304E; Fri, 18 May 2018 12:03:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 18 May 2018 19:29:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Simon Marchi Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: New ARI warning Fri May 18 01:56:48 UTC 2018 Message-ID: <20180518190346.4yy6e7dfn7bwascu@adacore.com> References: <20180518015648.GA106395@sourceware.org> <20180518182907.xhpjfk2jj2f3t65e@adacore.com> <9f29119c84b9d58b4499929bb752be78@simark.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9f29119c84b9d58b4499929bb752be78@simark.ca> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) X-SW-Source: 2018-05/txt/msg00411.txt.bz2 > > You can tag them as OK with a /* ARI: ... */ comment. > > > > But I suspect we just want to exclude files in gdb/unittests instead? > > Here is a patch that does that. Tested by checking the change in > > output before and after: > > > > 1101,1120d1100 > > < ./unittests/array-view-selftests.c > > < ./unittests/common-utils-selftests.c > > < ./unittests/environ-selftests.c > > < ./unittests/function-view-selftests.c > > < ./unittests/lookup_name_info-selftests.c > > < ./unittests/memory-map-selftests.c > > < ./unittests/memrange-selftests.c > > < ./unittests/observable-selftests.c > > < ./unittests/offset-type-selftests.c > > < ./unittests/optional-selftests.c > > < ./unittests/ptid-selftests.c > > < ./unittests/rsp-low-selftests.c > > < ./unittests/scoped_fd-selftests.c > > < ./unittests/scoped_mmap-selftests.c > > < ./unittests/scoped_restore-selftests.c > > < ./unittests/string_view-selftests.c > > < ./unittests/tracepoint-selftests.c > > < ./unittests/unpack-selftests.c > > < ./unittests/utils-selftests.c > > < ./unittests/xml-utils-selftests.c > > > > gdb/ChangeLog: > > > > * contrib/ari/gdb_find.sh: Exclude the unittest directory. > > I don't really mind, maybe some rules related to formatting would still be > appropriate for unittests/. Right, which is why I formulated this as a question. I don't really know what style we want there. But since it was easy to patch the script, I thought I'd send that right away, to show one of the options. But I'd be OK with deciding that unittests/ should follow the GDB coding standards. > Is is possible to exclude unittests/* instead of listing all the > files? We'll surely add new files in there, and don't want to have to > update that script every time. This is exactly what the patch I sent does. The above was just the diff of output between before and after patch (sorry for the cryptic message). find "$@" \ -name testsuite -prune -o \ + -name unittests -prune -o \ -name gdbserver -prune -o \ -name gdbtk -prune -o \ -name gnulib -prune -o \ -- Joel