From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11356 invoked by alias); 8 Nov 2013 17:44:58 -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 20442 invoked by uid 89); 8 Nov 2013 17:38:08 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-qa0-f74.google.com Received: from Unknown (HELO mail-qa0-f74.google.com) (209.85.216.74) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 08 Nov 2013 17:38:07 +0000 Received: by mail-qa0-f74.google.com with SMTP id hu16so185648qab.3 for ; Fri, 08 Nov 2013 09:37:59 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:date:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to :references; bh=SXONMLeP0jct2leo3+udXb9FQuMLItvP9+//BYHApY0=; b=UixSko0AugqxbiCuK6/JEQcjcU1pKZo5ABD81oP+ACkze2o9H+OhbmvdefBeEx7Pm2 vVu5iGEpOEfifiwvsiIRgoc9GdA5pw3K4cX/rcFUUlXwyJ5OrVHfxEgsW66cMhJKmnCs KNN/Q45ArpunjnxuKrVJyoEGQy5EmrRQ4ToUreK/jbnfRSA2GS17JR3DdgDmw64dXcMg 1XDp2czBG2xDoTgkcXR3GUwxvlTN2x+kSiCsgldwwg64nYXShFSUsf7rzby2CLBHHSLt E+AaBjuV57H0HGMaNXZHcceOUzMQfcibLj7LR3zPypbWWXm80HvuqM2ar801lyEh5+xI VPlA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQngstu4bgaeLng+Sk816SGKiaIShIu6BA1W9tyTEM0qvI559D/5vl+PE13ivmkwmeUlHBFwC3xwiTEO+NB1onHB7jouvXHJs50Eg1kWzcUBH2Z+kw0tIIDHzcWxgkk+OZqBkfBtsbjc6MT5Ha6+8wWohcexCknJEKpnuLut09CcS7/bGzQZ5aaCSjOOkMnfunBiMSPkbPEZ3MNSCrz1h+1Jp2YCgQ== X-Received: by 10.224.98.132 with SMTP id q4mr10085828qan.2.1383932279780; Fri, 08 Nov 2013 09:37:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from corp2gmr1-1.hot.corp.google.com (corp2gmr1-1.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.189.92]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t42si981243yhm.3.2013.11.08.09.37.59 for (version=TLSv1.1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 08 Nov 2013 09:37:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from ruffy.mtv.corp.google.com (ruffy.mtv.corp.google.com [172.17.128.44]) by corp2gmr1-1.hot.corp.google.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF70731C1D0; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 09:37:58 -0800 (PST) From: Doug Evans MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <21117.8566.225807.905608@ruffy.mtv.corp.google.com> Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 17:57:00 -0000 To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches , Pedro Alves , Stan Shebs Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix Gold/strip discrepancies for PR 11786 In-Reply-To: <20131107190059.GA24230@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20131031154957.GA11260@host2.jankratochvil.net> <87li13shk2.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20131105172219.GA21529@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20131105180547.GA24004@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20131106212434.GA4193@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20131107190059.GA24230@host2.jankratochvil.net> X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg00248.txt.bz2 Jan Kratochvil writes: > On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 18:32:08 +0100, Doug Evans wrote: > > I don't mind such changes, but these are changes. Agreed? > > So far I have expexted testsuite should follow the GDB coding standards and > reviewers only have various reasons (*) why not to enforce the coding > standards so strictly (or at all) for the testsuite. All the GDB coding standards? The testsuite is replete with various violations. [One might suggest requiring new tests to explicitly mark themselves as standard-compliant or non-compliant so that we can pass the plethora of -Wfoo that we pass for GDB. I wouldn't disagree that that's perhaps too much. :-)] I don't have a strong opinion, so I'm not the one you have to convince. [I do have a strong opinion that whatever the rules are, they be written down of course.] > (*) save time of both the submitter and reviewer, making patch acceptance > easier for submitters etc. > > > > I was trying to end the thread, and make some minimal mutually agreeable > > progress. > > I would also like so. I feel more comfortable getting approval for the modest changes I've proposed, making some progress, while leaving the general discussion to another thread. Either way is fine with me. No one has objected to my proposal (which isn't necessarily decisive of course). Propose yours and see what happens (please start a separate thread though so the Subject line is more appropriate). Being a more substantive change, I'd feel more comfortable with explicit approval from all the GMs, as opposed to passive non-disapproval. :-)