From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id kiiVN2FhvmBWRwAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 07 Jun 2021 14:11:45 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id D1ADC1F163; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 14:11:45 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.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 5BE871E939 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 14:11:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D2913894C1C for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 18:11:44 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 0D2913894C1C DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1623089504; bh=Ytix4hMgpOozyrbMz5o7aUjOb5ahNJJgnacwAXoUdOo=; h=Subject:To:References:Date:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=IdbB7wtbxPmErrdU0j7mpDMgXKrqNYhiSlfLCAI34/QdJVP2p6em4a6vN/WHAJf4M bmHHGlKKVbDat/k1NU9/0naZeOYgGC11RL9JVvB2MhcNzPMvrD6QBIEP65gmEphPOa 0TAD2RoaxrUMTbWK8zng6WSAHQcWW9n8ZsBhc43g= Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (smtp.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.11]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F6D2389683E for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 18:10:37 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 6F6D2389683E Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.polymtl.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 157I9TcN023902 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 7 Jun 2021 14:09:34 -0400 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp.polymtl.ca 157I9TcN023902 Received: from [10.0.0.11] (192-222-157-6.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.157.6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8CFAF1E939; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 14:09:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] gdb/python: handle saving user registers in a frame unwinder To: Lancelot SIX References: <20210607170710.a2dtukyyjjxwzmes@Plymouth> <20210607180131.dtq5ejhffpigicue@Plymouth> Message-ID: <6567d752-3eef-9782-106d-3daf008c0a00@polymtl.ca> Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2021 14:09:29 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210607180131.dtq5ejhffpigicue@Plymouth> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Poly-FromMTA: (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) at Mon, 7 Jun 2021 18:09:29 +0000 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: Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Simon Marchi Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" > Hi, > > Actually, this is mentioned in the PEP-8[1][2], which states in the > “Programming Recommandations” section: > > Comparisons to singletons like None should always be done with is or > is not, never the equality operators. > > This leads me to an annex question. Given that I still lack a lot of > experience with the overall codebase, I tend to pick this kind of small > stylistic details more easily than design and logic problems. I do not > always point out those I see when I read the ML, but I can totally > understand those isolated stylistic comments can be considered as noise. > If so, please let me know! I think it's perfectly OK. That's how you begin and then you grow from there, as your understanding of how things interact in the code base grows. I am pretty sure the first patches I reviewed were pointing out small and easy things. And even if someone has more experience in GDB, they can still learn from what you mentioned above. >> $ flake8 testsuite/gdb.python/py-unwind-user-regs.py >> testsuite/gdb.python/py-unwind-user-regs.py:52:18: E711 comparison to None should be 'if cond is None:' >> testsuite/gdb.python/py-unwind-user-regs.py:55:17: E711 comparison to None should be 'if cond is None:' > > I am currently running the testsuite against a patch that fixes those I > found. I’ll try to post it later tonight. Great, thanks! Simon