From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13513 invoked by alias); 15 Jun 2011 15:25:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 13482 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Jun 2011 15:25:13 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 15:24:56 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CE932BB2D2; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 11:24:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id oxBfDs9xFeUW; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 11:24:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 601C22BB2AE; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 11:24:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 0BFEF145615; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 08:24:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 15:25:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Phil Muldoon Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: ARI/Commit rules Message-ID: <20110615152451.GN5944@adacore.com> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-06/txt/msg00105.txt.bz2 > I was writing a patch today, and I once again arrived at the: "Should I > use X or Y for this operation" dilemma. There are a lot of unwritten > rules about programming usage in GDB (See ARI mails), and sometimes > maintainers don't catch them. This is inevitable with a project this > size and age. I have come to fear the post-commit ARI warnings ;) Yeah - the ARI is a useful tool (but, IMO, has to be taken with a grain of salt), and it's a pity that the results always come after the fact. Worse, from the WEB ARI results, I could see that some files have warnings, but I couldn't find where exactly in the file the warnings were. I think it would be nice to be able to run this script by hand from a checkout, and it shouldn't be too difficult, since it's mostly an awk script. And for those that use git, we could produce a hook as well, I think. We might have some issues with volume (number of warnings due to the already-present violations) though, or perhaps performance. I don't know about others, but since using git, I have been so spoiled that I expect every operation to be instantaneous... -- Joel