From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22458 invoked by alias); 5 Nov 2013 17:56:39 -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 22445 invoked by uid 89); 5 Nov 2013 17:56:38 -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-ve0-f175.google.com Received: from Unknown (HELO mail-ve0-f175.google.com) (209.85.128.175) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 17:56:37 +0000 Received: by mail-ve0-f175.google.com with SMTP id jz11so2716597veb.20 for ; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 09:56:29 -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=NEZ9gwjTqpR3F5L9G9JujI9mrzRQxIp6NeGnJocayk4=; b=lPLg0rTgb3Iozotk+le9ShAhfNI/WOg+HT0BcmN0FyNmGWbVzIXbwYGeWUnAyEHvMs vpV0Y0a/11jgQ5H2IhbHhjeUXHwgTMLQ1YNHrbaz4QVhI9T2T3OUQypsAAv6shIoBm1u lxXce6qvcllUJpMM9p0Z909T+JY6r9XEmrJuNSE8Pff+2dew6HTAi8F5GKue0Zzx8W6G opthIQb4/OzrYpT/1MzuIIzX6vM5eCFBLU+GqqtH0mfJzOdxZslb3x7h9m8AK0NYlVJF tXlHo9e4u81eMj+QA5wsLsKAnbaU6x1d1KUPRQsGrmulZMgZBbGeVOqnu0fU8SQvaWiF VTsA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQng8h7iv6EevlYdJR0KBcbZwp1mlZvi9uCf4y8UHiKIvfLC50YG0IhwtVTEjPqkzmz4JDd7e6IHuWPd61FFHqA63bZ4j002Q7tZHc52nUrd3KtHY8u7J9qqbZq+YUoz5qJ65fFpWZOmKWRbvL79+g9sVHTbIgtUry7qyPw4Cdr8ONIa71sLXQM0lIzyOIfQGVH0IMY6rb7iu6kLKNKnE0Xo24ktCQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.221.47.193 with SMTP id ut1mr16519383vcb.8.1383674189382; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 09:56:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.52.237.232 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 09:56:29 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20131105172219.GA21529@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20131031154957.GA11260@host2.jankratochvil.net> <87li13shk2.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20131105172219.GA21529@host2.jankratochvil.net> Date: Tue, 05 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 , Cary Coutant Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg00083.txt.bz2 On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Tue, 05 Nov 2013 18:04:38 +0100, Doug Evans wrote: >> I'm not sure how to read this. > > Primarily I do not understand if you really defend "()". "()" is wrong and > obsolete syntax. Reason is that it does not check against passed parameters, > making bugs more difficult to catch and therefore the code expensive to > maintain. All I'm asking for is clarity and consistency. [I'm not asking for perfection, but IWBN to make sure we're all on the same page.] > The real bug is that gdb/testsuite/ does not use the same CFLAGS like gdb/ > does, including -Wmissing-prototypes. > > It would be nice to enable it there one day. But nowadays nobody is going to > fix all the gdb/testsuite/ sources to make them compliant. But it is not > right to (1) make the testsuite code more expensive to maintain, > (2) needlessly different from the main GDB codebase code, (3) making the > future work of enabling -Wmissing-prototypes for gdb/testsuite/ more expensive > (if it ever happens). New tests go in all the time that are needlessly different from GDB. >> It's ok by me, but it seems to me it's not a requirement today as >> there are plenty of existing examples, > > Any existing code should be irrelevant, existing GDB code base is in a worse > state than what should be required for new commits. If the decision is to be more strict with the rules for testcases that's fine by me. Let's write it down, then discussions like these will become a *lot* shorter. >> including recent ones. > > This is worse, I am aware of it. Just I do not want to spend more time > catching such nitpicks when GDB has in several orders of magnitude more > serious problems. We spend time pointing out rule violations all the time. Why is this any different? Point (3) above says don't make the problem worse, but if I hadn't raised this issue I'm quite sure tests will continue to go in that violate any or all of 1,2,3. > Discussing such a clear thing like that "()" is forbidden > seems also as a loss of time to me. C++ even does not know K&R prototype > anymore so it will not even be possible in GDB anymore in some time, > hopefully. We also spend time discussing things from time to time. Why should this be any different?