From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26384 invoked by alias); 7 Nov 2013 17:32:18 -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 26370 invoked by uid 89); 7 Nov 2013 17:32:17 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,RDNS_NONE,SPAM_SUBJECT,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-ve0-f178.google.com Received: from Unknown (HELO mail-ve0-f178.google.com) (209.85.128.178) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 17:32:16 +0000 Received: by mail-ve0-f178.google.com with SMTP id db12so641971veb.37 for ; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 09:32:08 -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=5CKuwJLrLE2WgZIPB6QTIyi7VsMkm7ZDuOJREluFD0Y=; b=lLwCXX1UMXyJwSzypkFMFhvu+NUMl1lqycJBwZPUZMezEzkZUeNWfgW/9DXNN+9npH sZPgIzrlFxZqYOCv8dPUgGPeUCILWMKlqeCQtjjzGc5M6tElGfATwoU15f0QTL++ndJo TbKy9wAMPiBc9k0aL8AgX8ryD6GaE3BKMmnwxymBYFyk4+tppP9fcYzwICJ1hRi9kEt2 WmB7FMVUywPxU5wnV4/lks58TV5UIqpLdQ+XI89PHl/cyWV7dFDT5fZaOXHRtuMIO2hr SoIj97vvG4KDT7k6UWuiUPjCuzK5c/Ym2rU+8N0HiWdHPsQwUDjd6E4P4G8F6Wfi+y77 Yusw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk1NXj2tPIAqRUJxPse2ct75lv8eIgqRbfdhV9gffRYGCcN9J6ycVy4dj+VS/VGEA72G0JWfF5A/817feKA7SmFxo1MjAPgPmlKoSdrxMWMV0qwnQHzPCbahd7GOa7bRpmBUJfrdHZTzg8ts9bapq+5EszdFHtmbkHNifozdcpHJI7bHhO4reNnlEifLPneOENjKdu94h9754M3+9Qm47JYANLbnQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.58.11.73 with SMTP id o9mr7570852veb.8.1383845528296; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 09:32:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.52.237.232 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 09:32:08 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20131106212434.GA4193@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> Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 18:01:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix Gold/strip discrepancies for PR 11786 From: Doug Evans To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches , Pedro Alves , Stan Shebs Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg00199.txt.bz2 On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 22:14:27 +0100, Doug Evans wrote: >> It will basically say tests are in general not required to following >> the GDB coding standards, > > What is the reason for it? To codify the existing rules, as I understand them, and as has been affirmed from time to time. > I would find more logical to say tests should follow the same rules as GDB > code, unless there is a specific reason for it. Such as importing an existing > external reproducer, machine generated output etc. > > If GDB coding standards are not acceptable for testcases then it looks to me > as an indication the GDB coding standards should be changed. I don't mind such changes, but these are changes. Agreed? I was trying to end the thread, and make some minimal mutually agreeable progress. Also, AIUI, this community generally frowns on cleanup projects that will drag on. I can mechanically run every .c file through indent with some settings people agree on, but I'm not signing up to audit the entire testsuite to make sure we don't accidentally change a test that has important reasons for why it is written the way it is. OTOH, if we can all agree that existing tests need only be lazily updated (or not at all - I don't have a strong opinion) then that works too (though coding standards work so much better when Monkey See Monkey Do hacking Just Works).