From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id 4ehvEpg+3Wj8RhsAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 01 Oct 2025 10:45:44 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 4767F1E0B6; Wed, 01 Oct 2025 10:45:44 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.1 (2024-03-25) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=ARC_SIGNED,ARC_VALID,BAYES_00, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED,RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=4.0.1 Received: from server2.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 ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7A1E1E047 for ; Wed, 01 Oct 2025 10:45:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24878385828E for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2025 14:45:42 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 24878385828E Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AFA63858D29; Wed, 1 Oct 2025 14:44:56 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 2AFA63858D29 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 2AFA63858D29 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=217.140.110.172 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1759329896; cv=none; b=F2V6Uu8hK9PrWIxCgBoowwDH/N7w3fyYmTWdylvDabNbOBPqef0YYy+vLN4lOpwKOJNdiFG2MHrlLjSFGgGgOdzJxrMNPRsgS4vcH9SLK7jL/d1Wr7RlFEZZaYNZ1lNbKH0g439gog7bO6dzsW7XkSIxVNcM2CYTYHRmFJqisY0= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1759329896; c=relaxed/simple; bh=v3Kv6WEgZoyNtMMRTwWU3kKL6MT4x5pOB7gBfe0J40M=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:From; b=JC6/urxi2JqM7Ts9fSBesLX8HpCU15/6xGnjFlc9sV6yeZQqmfqp71y4bETw9alxUctirSvRbDXNCVdG1IbYELmUHj8nmz+qMAuSe9e27A/GXHC+L4h7+09xw0dK33uQ+Rr/QmDkPTGt/GBztg8+j9SiJvol+Fl+PPsbsCvpA2o= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 2AFA63858D29 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC0D116F2; Wed, 1 Oct 2025 07:44:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.2.78.71] (e120077-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.2.78.71]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BC6083F66E; Wed, 1 Oct 2025 07:44:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2025 15:44:53 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] toplevel: unify the GCC and GDB/binutils .editorconfig files To: Jonathan Wakely , Simon Marchi Cc: Richard Earnshaw , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, binutils@sourceware.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20250923164959.565000-1-rearnsha@arm.com> <20250923164959.565000-2-rearnsha@arm.com> <38fb35da-a80d-467c-a8ec-15a398661890@simark.ca> From: "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" Content-Language: en-GB In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.30 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces~public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org On 24/09/2025 09:23, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On Tue, 23 Sept 2025 at 18:11, Simon Marchi wrote: >> >> On 9/23/25 12:49 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote: >>> Both GCC and GDB/binutils now have root editorconfig files. It would >>> make sense to unify them as this sets the general tone for these >>> projects. >>> >>> ChangeLog: >>> * .editorconfig: Unify the GCC and GDB/binutils root config. >> >> From the point of view of GDB, this looks fine, thanks for doing this. > > > This looks like a vast improvement on the bare-bones config I added > for GCC, thanks. > I've now pushed this to the GCC repo, but I've not yet heard anything from the binutils maintainers. Do I need to wait for them, or is Simon's ack for GDB enough? R.