From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20285 invoked by alias); 27 Jan 2003 20:44:14 -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 20277 invoked from network); 27 Jan 2003 20:44:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (66.30.197.194) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 27 Jan 2003 20:44:12 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E55C63D2C; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:44:09 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3E359A19.1040908@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 20:44:00 -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> <3E3582DC.3000100@redhat.com> <20030127191745.GA11567@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00446.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. The original indent occured ~99. Search for `shebs indent' in the gdb@ mailing list. There are a number of threads and that appears to find most of them. Stan Shebs considered the comment problem but, in the end, went with straight indent with no arguments and used INDENT-ON / INDENT-OFF where he decided the output was too nasty. gdb_indent.sh was added ~ November 2001. > It wasn't > obvious to me that writing comments with indentation was against GDB's > formatting policies. You can certainly format comments anyway you like. Just don't be suprised if someone runs gdb_indent.sh over the file causing them to be reformatted. > 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. PR gdb/712. PR gdb/698. Indent's default mode (i.e., with no formattting arguments) should match the GNU coding style. gdb_indent.sh runs indent in that mode so that it's indentation style matches the GNU coding style (-T isn't a formatting option). Like I said, dead issue, lets get on to the real problems at hand. Andrew