This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: gdb_indent vs. dwarf2read
- From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at redhat dot com>
- To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- Cc: gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 12:30:21 -0500
- Subject: Re: gdb_indent vs. dwarf2read
- References: <20030127031101.GA17969@nevyn.them.org>
What do people think about adding "-T bfd -T asection" to gdb_indent.sh?
That's the majority style in current GDB, and we do it for some other
similar types.
I thought they were already....
[I'd like to re-indent dwarf2read.c, so I was looking over the results of
gdb_indent.sh on it before posting the patch. Other churn: structs moved
from two spaces indented to the left column
Structs should not be indented two spaces.
There was one release of indent that did the two space struct. GDB,
unfortunatly, happened to do its jumbo re-indent using that version.
Ever since then, re-indents have been `fixing' this foobar.
> which matches the general style
in GDB; and comments like:
1) foo
bar
reindented to
1) foo
bar
Can you give a real example? It might be a bug. There is also the
no-indent comment mechanism for comments that really should not be
re-indented.
. Should we slavishly obey GNU indent in this, or should I reformat the
comments by hand before posting the reindentation patch?]
GDB's indentation is defined by the output of indent. That one isn't
open to negotation.
Andrew