This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [commit] Fix fnchange.lst
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 13:44:59 +0200
- Subject: Re: [commit] Fix fnchange.lst
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20090919155750.GU8910@adacore.com> <email@example.com> <20090920161048.GX8910@adacore.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <20091001170107.GN10338@adacore.com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 10:01:07 -0700
> From: Joel Brobecker <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Cc: email@example.com
> > Here you go. Save as "chkfnames" and invoke it like this:
> > srcdir=FOO tmpdir=BAR ./chkfnames
> Can we make the script ignore libdecnumber and gnulib, .cvsignore
There are only a few of files in libdecnumber and gnulib, so I didn't
think it was justified to remove them. They do present a real
As for .cvsignore, they shouldn't present a problem because they are
not in the tarball. If you are running the script on the CVS sandbox,
then I guess we need to ignore them. I will see what I can do.
> Should we also skip testsuite files?
I don't think so. Any conflicts cause trouble when unpacking the
tarball on 8+3 and some older Windows systems.
> Right now, the script as is generates a lot of output about some things
> that we cannot fix in GDB itself. From a Q/A perspective, this is going
> to cause us to miss.
I agree that too much noise is bad, but do we really have a lot of
noise? How many positives are you willing to have before they are
> What should we do with the entries in section called:
> "The following resolve to the same SysV file names:"
Nothing. We don't care about this part of doschk's output. I thought
I made that section disappear, but it sounds like I goofed.