This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Fix Gold/strip discrepancies for PR 11786

On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Jan Kratochvil
<> wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 22:14:27 +0100, Doug Evans wrote:
>> It will basically say tests are in general not required to following
>> the GDB coding standards,
> What is the reason for it?

To codify the existing rules, as I understand them, and as has
been affirmed from time to time.

> I would find more logical to say tests should follow the same rules as GDB
> code, unless there is a specific reason for it.  Such as importing an existing
> external reproducer, machine generated output etc.
> If GDB coding standards are not acceptable for testcases then it looks to me
> as an indication the GDB coding standards should be changed.

I don't mind such changes, but these are changes.  Agreed?
I was trying to end the thread, and make some minimal mutually agreeable

Also, AIUI, this community generally frowns on cleanup projects that
will drag on.
I can mechanically run every .c file through indent with some settings
people agree on, but
I'm not signing up to audit the entire testsuite to make sure we don't
change a test that has important reasons for why it is written the way it is.
OTOH, if we can all agree that existing tests need only be lazily
updated (or not at all -
I don't have a strong opinion) then that works too (though coding standards
work so much better when Monkey See Monkey Do hacking Just Works).

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]