From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10406 invoked by alias); 18 May 2018 19:14:43 -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 7112 invoked by uid 89); 18 May 2018 19:14:38 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_NUMSUBJECT,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=our X-HELO: simark.ca Received: from simark.ca (HELO simark.ca) (158.69.221.121) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 18 May 2018 19:14:37 +0000 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id A3FED1F21B; Fri, 18 May 2018 15:14:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from simark.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 345281F211; Fri, 18 May 2018 15:14:33 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 18 May 2018 19:38:00 -0000 From: Simon Marchi To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: New ARI warning Fri May 18 01:56:48 UTC 2018 In-Reply-To: <20180518190346.4yy6e7dfn7bwascu@adacore.com> References: <20180518015648.GA106395@sourceware.org> <20180518182907.xhpjfk2jj2f3t65e@adacore.com> <9f29119c84b9d58b4499929bb752be78@simark.ca> <20180518190346.4yy6e7dfn7bwascu@adacore.com> Message-ID: X-Sender: simark@simark.ca User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.6 X-SW-Source: 2018-05/txt/msg00412.txt.bz2 On 2018-05-18 15:03, Joel Brobecker wrote: > Right, which is why I formulated this as a question. I don't really > know what style we want there. But since it was easy to patch the > script, I thought I'd send that right away, to show one of the options. > But I'd be OK with deciding that unittests/ should follow the GDB > coding standards. I think we can just add the /* ARI: ... */ comments, I'll try it later. I don't see any reason why it would be harder in general to follow our code conventions in unit tests than anywhere else. This case is just a bit of a special one. >> Is is possible to exclude unittests/* instead of listing all the >> files? We'll surely add new files in there, and don't want to have to >> update that script every time. > > This is exactly what the patch I sent does. The above was just > the diff of output between before and after patch (sorry for > the cryptic message). > > find "$@" \ > -name testsuite -prune -o \ > + -name unittests -prune -o \ > -name gdbserver -prune -o \ > -name gdbtk -prune -o \ > -name gnulib -prune -o \ Ahh ok, I missed the patch in attachment. I indeed thought that the output you pasted was the actual patch in a cryptic format (like diff's default format). Simon