This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] Add support for embedding scripts in .debug_gdb_scripts.
- From: Doug Evans <xdje42 at gmail dot com>
- To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>, "gdb-patches at sourceware dot org" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 08:35:06 -0800
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add support for embedding scripts in .debug_gdb_scripts.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <m3bnm0ar23 dot fsf at sspiff dot org> <83ppaf3oe6 dot fsf at gnu dot org> <CAP9bCMSC0TgsuZ+K0qb6Fkdafh_vbbCL+gBZ3V1h6aM6kUqW+A at mail dot gmail dot com> <83egqu1u69 dot fsf at gnu dot org> <CAP9bCMREvQTdNiH_fP8r3UUynFevR9DNw2nc8ESJ7r0qnF9boQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <8361c5254p dot fsf at gnu dot org> <CAP9bCMQdPwb3NxdHTtAnDGN8c99bKOZbJda9RCsXs+m8xRT71Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <83egqsys6z dot fsf at gnu dot org> <CAP9bCMTbhAc-BfFTCb_mLyEWFo2soPxS=5dq0AW8qT0s-hxiAg at mail dot gmail dot com> <20150119144921 dot GC4041 at adacore dot com>
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 6:49 AM, Joel Brobecker <email@example.com> wrote:
>> >> All NEWS entries for new features shall specify the platform(s) on which
>> >> the feature is available, if it is not a generally available feature.
>> >> [or words to that effect]
>> >> And let's enforce all these rules the way we do
>> >> coding conventions (which I don't have a problem with).
>> >> Ok?
>> > I'm fine with that, if no one objects. But you cannot possibly codify
>> > all such minor issues, they are too many. And it isn't needed, from
>> > my POV.
>> If it serves to put in writing absolute rules that someone is likely
>> to get tripped up by or not understand then it will have served its
> I just personally think this is too extreme a measure. There are times
> when absolute rules may be useful, but I don't think this is the case
Eh? What we have here *is* an absolute rule:
We used to be allowed to use phrases like NUL-terminated
in documentation, now we are not.
> Eli is our documentation maintainer,so let's continue trusting
> his judgement. This discussion is not about black and white, and
> as such, it's easy to disagree. But I don't think it's important
> enough to spend more time on this. I know it can be fustrating
> to make a change one does not believe in, but after a reasonable
> attempt at discussing it, I'd go with his call.
I for one would liked to have seen the data to back up
the claim that NUL-terminated is archaic.
It's not that I don't trust someone's judgement, rather it's that that's
the wrong way to impose the change.