From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31715 invoked by alias); 5 Nov 2013 17:04:50 -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 31684 invoked by uid 89); 5 Nov 2013 17:04:50 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,RDNS_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-vb0-f52.google.com Received: from Unknown (HELO mail-vb0-f52.google.com) (209.85.212.52) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 17:04:48 +0000 Received: by mail-vb0-f52.google.com with SMTP id f12so1914747vbg.39 for ; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 09:04:38 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=SA0++w8bZqt8a2qgYwKsc5aYveftyqY9zGawRFrWeuk=; b=MTFuy5LG2+OtIgn1IX7fUOqWBuG2pF9g02FxsclhVKdjIW34HdlOP5xj76m68DmAFx 9mcEKg2L+w8Y09yqMZ6YISJSZdA+HXzJ/JMtJAGTJ8fTkXRQ34naxUXPbJBUQPH8BITd GrtT6hjhC6dKvpwf+bpAY4AfMn3UlKgX5J/IrMjT7vHNBVm90Mux3u6KSaRpcClST377 +Cq6vFF+9Y8QsWGnaJorxdoAB43PfG9Xr3LZIwZNVKS5sa5XLimHZxzZliYg//HV1tbn v18UeZcriWTvqXpXUN7k1rc93Xn5OPJDjXdWfcWCoh7eH9Pq026awsCnw+Tb0dEiaZ0q SVFQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn5ToQk150uoSlkeNGp0njlxcF/VgCqG+xZ8rq5B/i2oGvWuQgRPpbV9DgLWdtn0vRnSnTWvRTfTt3+DSpZp7SMxUSTCr/pr5+kIU0gIomR0VcvM90IeJvl/IINYM/45UV/pMOQxYyo8cig3KwxvpY1nJDtCGZuTgfqu5/5Twm5j09E+xUgQtnu72Jmb9DK0V52bK+HIsEvCicBRauwzPqAr9y6eA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.221.47.193 with SMTP id ut1mr16343785vcb.8.1383671078744; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 09:04:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.52.237.232 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 09:04:38 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87li13shk2.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> References: <20131031154957.GA11260@host2.jankratochvil.net> <87li13shk2.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 17:22:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix Gold/strip discrepancies for PR 11786 From: Doug Evans To: Tom Tromey Cc: Jan Kratochvil , gdb-patches , Cary Coutant Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg00074.txt.bz2 On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>> (void) > > Doug> We don't have any such style rules for testcases. > Doug> But ok, done. > > Doug> Going forward though, for my own patch reviews of other people's code, > Doug> what's the story here? > > In this case, "()" is not idiomatic C, whereas "(void)" is. > This is not the same as a coding style rule. I'm not sure how to read this. Is this an argument for requiring (void) in all testsuite C function definitions? It's ok by me, but it seems to me it's not a requirement today as there are plenty of existing examples, including recent ones. OTOH, if there is such a requirement we'd better get it written down so we can refer to it when requesting corrections in patches, and so people can know ahead of time what's expected. Obviously the rules state this for gdb itself, but it's been my understanding that these rules explicitly do not apply to the testsuite, and this understanding has been affirmed from time to time. All I'm asking for is clarity and consistency. Or is this just a point about a bad use of the word "style"? By itself "style" is a pretty nondescript word. Alas I'm not one for always assigning names with precision. If this isn't a style issue, coding *or* otherwise, let me know what to call it. If this is something else, let me know that too. :-)