From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14774 invoked by alias); 27 Jan 2003 19:17:19 -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 14766 invoked from network); 27 Jan 2003 19:17:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 27 Jan 2003 19:17:18 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18dGds-0003fc-00 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:18:08 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18dElN-00033n-00 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 14:17:45 -0500 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 19:17:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: gdb_indent vs. dwarf2read Message-ID: <20030127191745.GA11567@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20030127031101.GA17969@nevyn.them.org> <3E356CAD.1000306@redhat.com> <20030127174346.GA23136@nevyn.them.org> <3E3582DC.3000100@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E3582DC.3000100@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00440.txt.bz2 On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 02:05:00PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >. Should we slavishly obey GNU indent in this, or should I reformat the > >>>comments by hand before posting the reindentation patch?] > > > >> > >>GDB's indentation is defined by the output of indent. That one isn't > >>open to negotation. > > > > > >OK; but if people prefer to write formatted comments, we could specify > >indent options, couldn't we? Or are we defined by the decisions of the > >Indent maintainers? > > GDB's indentation is defined by the output of indent. That one isn't > open to negotation. > > Please don't waste this lists time by re-visiting a dead issue. Please don't shoot me in the head for asking an honest question. It's apparently been dead for longer than I've been on the GDB lists, and the issue is not mentioned in MAINTAINERS or in the GDB internals documentation. Or even in a comment in gdb_indent.sh. It wasn't obvious to me that writing comments with indentation was against GDB's formatting policies. It should be documented, obviously. It would be nice if there were also a brief rationale, to prevent recurring arguments about what seems at first glance to be a completely arbitrary decision. I'm somewhat unsettled by your response. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer