From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id R4dqCQ8otmNXjQ8AWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 04 Jan 2023 20:29:51 -0500 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 1625B1E222; Wed, 4 Jan 2023 20:29:51 -0500 (EST) Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; secure) header.d=sourceware.org header.i=@sourceware.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=bvEpt9V3; dkim-atps=neutral X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RDNS_DYNAMIC,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from sourceware.org (ip-8-43-85-97.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD39F1E112 for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2023 20:29:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21453385841C for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2023 01:29:49 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 21453385841C DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1672882189; bh=XHJ6uHiiGYmYjl01vXdhqZ/kjR76BKBhZrbOQ95xAwY=; h=Date:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From:Reply-To:From; b=bvEpt9V3BmctX5fnQkJuP1CgMhKM60OMdn5GTP5RBzVKE5o+PVk15R884VP28+TSJ kGx10mELhY516U3qe6cqrtgOMEY2ZUHwDYzpwN8qaezk1ac0UjlNIaYAr9sIJpuz2g noxVOAN56TzmqDQzmk3qWbZMi2IASHmfZP3anOug= Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3F3F3858D35 for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2023 01:29:27 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org D3F3F3858D35 Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx3-rdu2.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-562-Ds9RXgClOwerILcLjfZfVw-1; Wed, 04 Jan 2023 20:29:26 -0500 X-MC-Unique: Ds9RXgClOwerILcLjfZfVw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05E2E29A9D35; Thu, 5 Jan 2023 01:29:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from f37-zws-1 (unknown [10.2.16.55]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF74F2166B30; Thu, 5 Jan 2023 01:29:25 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2023 18:29:23 -0700 To: Tom Tromey Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/46] Rewrite "require" test procedure and use it more often Message-ID: <20230104182923.79a512ef@f37-zws-1> In-Reply-To: <20221217000818.3729389-1-tom@tromey.com> References: <20221217000818.3729389-1-tom@tromey.com> Organization: Red Hat MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.6 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Kevin Buettner via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Kevin Buettner Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 17:07:32 -0700 Tom Tromey wrote: > Let me know what you think. Overall, I like this series. One thing that I find a little odd (due to a sort of double negation) is the construct: require !skip_something ...which replaces something like: if {[skip_something]} { unsupported "target does not support something" return 0 } I see that Markus Metzger also commented on this and also that you noted that this could be improved over time. (Which is fine with me.) I looked at each patch in the series, though I didn't read all of them closely. After a while, I just did some spot checks to make sure that they were doing what I expected. So... LGTM. Kevin