From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4739 invoked by alias); 27 Jan 2003 19:05:03 -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 4732 invoked from network); 27 Jan 2003 19:05:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (66.30.197.194) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 27 Jan 2003 19:05:03 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7785406A; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 14:05:00 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3E3582DC.3000100@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 19:05:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20021211 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: gdb_indent vs. dwarf2read References: <20030127031101.GA17969@nevyn.them.org> <3E356CAD.1000306@redhat.com> <20030127174346.GA23136@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00439.txt.bz2 > . 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. Andrew