From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17137 invoked by alias); 27 Jan 2003 03:10:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 17125 invoked from network); 27 Jan 2003 03:10:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 27 Jan 2003 03:10:36 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18d1YM-0002Ab-00 for ; Sun, 26 Jan 2003 23:11:26 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18czfp-0004hA-00 for ; Sun, 26 Jan 2003 22:11:01 -0500 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 03:10:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: gdb_indent vs. dwarf2read Message-ID: <20030127031101.GA17969@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00427.txt.bz2 What do people think about adding "-T bfd -T asection" to gdb_indent.sh? That's the majority style in current GDB, and we do it for some other similar types. [I'd like to re-indent dwarf2read.c, so I was looking over the results of gdb_indent.sh on it before posting the patch. Other churn: structs moved from two spaces indented to the left column, which matches the general style in GDB; and comments like: 1) foo bar reindented to 1) foo bar . Should we slavishly obey GNU indent in this, or should I reformat the comments by hand before posting the reindentation patch?] -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer