From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id GJurKJCZ62PcoDIAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 09:24:16 -0500 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id A44D61E221; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 09:24:16 -0500 (EST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, NICE_REPLY_A,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63DE81E0D3 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 09:24:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24A833851402 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 14:24:15 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail-wm1-f44.google.com (mail-wm1-f44.google.com [209.85.128.44]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F36073858D1E for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 14:23:58 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org F36073858D1E Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=palves.net Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Received: by mail-wm1-f44.google.com with SMTP id l37-20020a05600c1d2500b003dfe46a9801so11780165wms.0 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 06:23:58 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-language:in-reply-to:mime-version :user-agent:date:message-id:from:references:cc:to:subject :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=2ctvuJv+NE8ptAz668UbBgoA9ZnGrpOJuvNE1JHbyfA=; b=3Lhi02cGtCqkaAOHHRIGqX26O9rv1V/JqlPv2d1OnBfdyyoo3KEU/dl2G1YECRGamW SZe9+uYvMRkH3IpOqU5vMYqJrsnLvk+DEjjSj3lptJDVxpVwZzpXfdwdEK9772ikEzwj 55DbT9U5cjdX3dgHqfZRcjVENN2dq2DX6JniGIvoG5vc9xoT5VP1VDGww7U8ytaTvYar TzSJfKgKnkWOB+9NI+N6Vt/60n+DyhW2EmcmhDRh3+TuyZTBrdSS6NiUVN4PHouX83Ev i/GllxoQX7O4ajWFQHsLyP2w78T6eVoP9sZJPcYB2CtY+NEcef0L8C5XmFsgKzZQi19W WLCw== X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKXKJPHvfT96mrxGLGQVPPNBwoZWd0mBitdPkKi+OS5Ljdpoyl7M Zta1Gx8TEh8TIq2w2o1hv2vOnLv1cbKIMg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set/WYS6484IVXYEQO/ExO6PpgnLbn9Iw7zOeUo4sxTy53vfUaKUsc4W9GwuKDGDANzSr+dmGyw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:1684:b0:3db:fc3:6de4 with SMTP id k4-20020a05600c168400b003db0fc36de4mr2106010wmn.35.1676384637409; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 06:23:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:8a0:f92b:9e00::1fe? ([2001:8a0:f92b:9e00::1fe]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t15-20020a05600c328f00b003dc5b59ed7asm16569281wmp.11.2023.02.14.06.23.56 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 14 Feb 2023 06:23:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Any concrete plans after the GDB BoF? To: Luis Machado , Andrew Burgess , Mark Wielaard Cc: Simon Marchi , Joel Brobecker , Simon Marchi via Gdb References: <83485199-965e-7ff5-1dc8-d027b74b56f7@arm.com> <5924814b-2e53-da09-6125-48ac5a5296e7@simark.ca> <87mt5kunum.fsf@redhat.com> <20230212124345.GH2430@gnu.wildebeest.org> <87r0utu6ew.fsf@redhat.com> <65409b73-fc6d-9a89-3541-31eb1a0b0791@arm.com> From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <775a1ed2-c034-0536-1ea3-b56504b3d1a5@palves.net> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2023 14:23:55 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <65409b73-fc6d-9a89-3541-31eb1a0b0791@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: gdb@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: gdb-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb" On 2023-02-13 12:52 p.m., Luis Machado via Gdb wrote: > I think Mark's point is just that we haven't settled on a particular gnu-for-clang-format rule set. > > Yes, there is a gnu style there already, but we haven't decide if it is good enough or not. > > We just need to play with it for a bit and see if people overall think it is good enough. I've voiced this before in private discussions, but I think never in public. So here goes: I'm in the: "I wouldn't mind using a tool, but I don't think clang-format's current output is good enough" camp.