From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id YFxeFyLu7GMZlzMAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2023 09:37:22 -0500 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 5C2121E221; Wed, 15 Feb 2023 09:37:22 -0500 (EST) Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; secure) header.d=sourceware.org header.i=@sourceware.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=XWlgNT3A; dkim-atps=neutral X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, URIBL_BLOCKED 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 DD6F01E110 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2023 09:37:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46C1B385840D for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2023 14:37:20 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 46C1B385840D DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1676471840; bh=ukdQR1k5GlmrCBrDrVL17Zq6a1sKRWXg6VFHbSB3OAg=; h=To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From:Reply-To:From; b=XWlgNT3AuFX7m0NpXth9Ii19/GfaxrfBN+W0Bo16ygfCNON7PIj8MR7rxhracylLF VF4nqkWIND3ejfz8c+IqIxSn9zYoZvWuieIBkpRmW2QNAG68rzLEhnct9KMSxBBv27 qj5p+22eVk2Z3lcnKmjMg0aGdoopuT4i/T0r5Wt0= Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D1823858D35 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2023 14:36:53 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 4D1823858D35 Received: from mail-qt1-f198.google.com (mail-qt1-f198.google.com [209.85.160.198]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id us-mta-244-G80BLk33MRqUAKeFKe1G9A-1; Wed, 15 Feb 2023 09:36:51 -0500 X-MC-Unique: G80BLk33MRqUAKeFKe1G9A-1 Received: by mail-qt1-f198.google.com with SMTP id a24-20020ac87218000000b003bb7c7a82f7so11084389qtp.9 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2023 06:36:51 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=mime-version:message-id:date:references:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to :from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=ukdQR1k5GlmrCBrDrVL17Zq6a1sKRWXg6VFHbSB3OAg=; b=FjzJVmI0GNDCrtz8YaTdYn3eegGrId7erkwXuv+uCuNe3GEdMf0Wsz9845uK3V/0kj LFX8l7uhzI3SbLW9Vm8eKfkjEeoR3a5YQZocshh1hfQB3mOpMSPq6cTg4MmCjVqXt/nb N6KP4eQ/QoRobMpTlvUQfWMnkpbl9NF+2+SgClLnLlNXGGLM4m3JEPdz/pz+rSdw5khL 6Au1WaZq6n5Dy2b4QQQbP80BEdMgCR48jHvp7mo5/EMas16Fdz2swVXIosXYRK1fIeF0 r6Bf4skDxoOCIq55TVp/g1Tcyva3RS+eoFCP7f8TII6Ex2mzIb/AHlGZ6w3W5/Kj1DKV bevA== X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKVRiLrvizw95i2FNRQXRkwJcjyFf2IeApounQjmCnfjGxhYXpb4 8Phe8bWwJ0NeEKrryH1mgpZS7JpNaFG5ZK9Zr+vnZSF4KViCp6cXC7tAPXnrRuqBREfWACo1Vru k4dcx22dGW9U= X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:c4:b0:3bb:760d:9345 with SMTP id p4-20020a05622a00c400b003bb760d9345mr3543869qtw.0.1676471811275; Wed, 15 Feb 2023 06:36:51 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set+psktVaNykK+xPDYRahklIzQYYwO06wAyVoROy3misa0ivCsLRMx0aKzl+dCDYXPnI9FyeGQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:c4:b0:3bb:760d:9345 with SMTP id p4-20020a05622a00c400b003bb760d9345mr3543841qtw.0.1676471811023; Wed, 15 Feb 2023 06:36:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (95.72.115.87.dyn.plus.net. [87.115.72.95]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z5-20020a379705000000b00705cef9b84asm13689933qkd.131.2023.02.15.06.36.50 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 15 Feb 2023 06:36:50 -0800 (PST) To: Mark Wielaard Cc: Simon Marchi , Joel Brobecker , Simon Marchi via Gdb Subject: Re: Any concrete plans after the GDB BoF? In-Reply-To: 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> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2023 14:36:48 +0000 Message-ID: <873577m1vj.fsf@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain 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: , From: Andrew Burgess via Gdb Reply-To: Andrew Burgess Errors-To: gdb-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb" Mark Wielaard writes: > Hi Andrew, > > On Mon, 2023-02-13 at 11:54 +0000, Andrew Burgess wrote: >> Mark Wielaard writes: >> >> > But is there already a verions that works? I think that is the >> > difference between the python black formatter for python code and the >> > clang-format for C and C++ code. It seems for the python code there is >> > a supported format that matches what is used, but for clang-format >> > there is not (yet?). >> >> I'm a little confused by your point here. You (correctly) point out >> above that the output from black is pretty stable across versions. >> >> But here it almost seems like you're suggesting that we should chase the >> latest clang-format because it doesn't (currently) support the style we >> use. Which would seem to suggest we are hoping it _will_ change, which >> suggests output instability, which, surely, is a bad thing? But like I >> said, I didn't really understand the question here... > > Sorry, I was just observing that I believe the python with black case > and the C and C++ case with clang-format are not the same. I think we > are in agreement that the python case is probably fine Just for the record, my concerns about using a tool to format C/C++ code hold just as much for Python (i.e. I don't really think our current use of black is "fine"), but I just don't care enough to express an opinion (before now). > (we just > disagree about whether it is future proof - I think we can use whatever > version of black, you are skeptical that the formatting will stay the > same). But for clang-format we don't have a format that seems > acceptable (to at least to some people) and older versions seems to > produce different formatting from newer versions. I'd assumed the output of clang-format would be mostly stable, if that's known not to be true then I think that's a stronger argument for using a known version. Thanks, Andrew