Re: (patch) hpjyg15: hppah-nat.c & related

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>]

Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> 
>   In message < Pine.LNX.4.10.9912150951120.29808-100000@hpcll168.cup.hp.com >you
> write:
>   > Since I'm splitting apart changes made by HP, in various areas, over 12
>   > months, into multiple patches, there's a need for me to run indent on
>   > the patched source to ensure that the GNU coding style in gdb source is
>   > adhered to.  I will make sure that pure formatting changes (line breaks)
>   > made by HP are not introduced along with real changes.
> Well, there may be instances where you have a real change that required a
> formatting update.  ie consider if you had
> 
>   if (foo)
>     blah

> You missed another alternative, which I'd tend to favor.
> 
> 1. Run intent on the gdb source files.  Submit that as a patch.  That should be
>    acceptable without problems.
> 
> 2. Apply the patch from wdb using whatever means are possible (patch -l ?).
> 
> 3. Re-run indent on the changed files.
> 
> 4. Submit the patch resulting from diffing the output of steps #1 and #3.

From memory, one of the original problems Jim[HP] found was that
re-running indent further changed the file :-(

	Andrew
From guo@cup.hp.com Thu Dec 16 00:39:00 1999
From: Jimmy Guo <guo@cup.hp.com>
To: Jeffrey A Law <law@cygnus.com>
Cc: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>, gdb-patches@sourceware.cygnus.com
Subject: Re: (patch) hpjyg15: hppah-nat.c & related 
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 00:39:00 -0000
Message-id: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9912160026010.32740-100000@hpcll168.cup.hp.com>
References: <4534.945330639@upchuck>
X-SW-Source: 1999-q4/msg00402.html
Content-length: 1215

>You missed another alternative, which I'd tend to favor.
>
>1. Run intent on the gdb source files.  Submit that as a patch.  That should be
>   acceptable without problems.
>
>2. Apply the patch from wdb using whatever means are possible (patch -l ?).
>
>3. Re-run indent on the changed files.
>
>4. Submit the patch resulting from diffing the output of steps #1 and #3.

    This is very doable.  Painful as it may appear, it's more so in the
    steps involved than the actual overhead ... and I will definitely
    write a simple script to generate patch for #1 and #3 in one shot ...

>Yes, this is painful.  But it avoids introducing new formatting problems in
>the sources (in fact via step #1 it will tend to fix formatting problems that
>have slipped in accidentally).

    I agree.

>Of course we only need to go through this pain as we flush out your old
>patches.  Newer stuff should be done using GNU standards and this kind of
>painful process shouldn't be necessary.

    Since I'm 'chopping' changes apart to limit patch scope and
    'cooking' patches during patch testing cycles, the above steps are
    pretty much what should be done for my future patches as well.

- Jimmy Guo, guo@cup.hp.com