From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id 5+NQMu2SHWL/ZAAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2022 22:28:45 -0500 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id BCA541F3C8; Mon, 28 Feb 2022 22:28:45 -0500 (EST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RDNS_DYNAMIC,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 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 D85B91F0D2 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2022 22:28:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D45E43858409 for ; Tue, 1 Mar 2022 03:28:43 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org D45E43858409 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1646105323; bh=IcaZ4mCxAyip5LtUR875CxjUwoUY3AZEdgIOb00FCdQ=; h=Date:To:In-Reply-To:Subject:References:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=hyT0tGS+921Cds0J97x1VkuWmf5IPbgsSSt8rENCNAG1ZgV2t0+1p+zwlOWi7BGG0 +yOgYQa/jsw4TsxqBDqXNg2G3j1rpOOAc6CKc1yPo16i9yPE8kHpP8vOmB6cwkZaaG 0+GbW5VXg+zQK/VY2ArhAP9Y6cNeCzPdfVhHSEfc= Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [209.51.188.92]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59D723858D20 for ; Tue, 1 Mar 2022 03:28:21 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 59D723858D20 Received: from [2001:470:142:3::e] (port=54002 helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nOtBU-0003zc-Or; Mon, 28 Feb 2022 22:28:20 -0500 Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=1472 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nOtBT-000159-Rc; Mon, 28 Feb 2022 22:28:20 -0500 Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2022 05:28:12 +0200 Message-Id: <83wnhel5bn.fsf@gnu.org> To: Tom Tromey In-Reply-To: <87lexulnba.fsf@tromey.com> (message from Tom Tromey on Mon, 28 Feb 2022 13:59:37 -0700) Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] Handle non-ASCII identifiers in Ada References: <20220228183304.1162089-1-tromey@adacore.com> <20220228183304.1162089-6-tromey@adacore.com> <83y21ulsuo.fsf@gnu.org> <87lexulnba.fsf@tromey.com> 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: Eli Zaretskii via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" > From: Tom Tromey > Cc: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org > Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2022 13:59:37 -0700 > > Eli> This script assumes that the version of Python which will run it is > Eli> up-to-date with the latest Unicode Character Database (UCD), right? > Eli> Is that a good assumption? Wouldn't it be better to process the UCD > Eli> from the latest Unicode Standard directly? > > Ordinarily, yes, but in practice the Ada compiler uses quite old data, > and so whatever is provided by a recent-ish Python is more than good > enough. How old is "old data", and how recent-ish should be "recent-ish Python", for this purpose? Or maybe we should document what is the oldest version of Python that currently suits the needs?