[PATCH v2 0/3] gas: add command line option to inhibit info messages

[Jan Beulich]

On 09.07.2024 11:10, Matthieu Longo wrote:
> On 2024-07-09 08:40, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 04.07.2024 17:51, Matthieu Longo wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> GAS currently emits information messages for context information along warnings. These extra messages might sometimes pollute the test expectations when checking for error message patterns in stderr output.
>>>
>>> This patch aims at providing two new flags while preserving the existing behavior if none of the options is provided.
>>>    * --info, similar to the existing --warn flag to enable diagnostic information messages (default behavior).
>>>    * --no-info, similar to the existing --no-warn flag to disable diagnostic information messages.
>>>
>>> It also adds the flags to the existing documentation, and command manual.
>>>
>>> As an example of its benefit, I used the new flag for the system register tests under gas/testsuite/gas/aarch64/sysreg testsuite, and the info message for macro expansion were removed inside the tests expectations.
>>>
>>> Regression tested on aarch64-none-elf, and no regression found.
>>>
>>> Ok for binutils-master?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Matthieu.
>>>
>>> Changes from v0:
>>> - reorder warning options
>>>    https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2024-June/135232.html
>>> - rename flag_no_infos to flag_no_information.
>>> - documentation: move --no-info and --info flags after warnings flags.
>>> - remove from this patch's scope the tests relying on the line number.
>>>    add a check in output_info() in AArch64 backend.
>>>    check flag_no_information flag and quickly return if enabled, as requested in the previous revision's review.
>>>    https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2024-June/135231.html
>>>
>>> Changes from v1:
>>> - move the '--info' section up to respect alphabetical order.
>>
>> I'm a little puzzled here: Checking patch 2, I think I see only a single
>> place where such movement was actually done. Did you maybe send a stale
>> patch?
> 
> In a previous review, you mentioned:
>  > In all of the doc changes you appear to be entirely ignoring the present
>  > alphabetical sorting in the blocks you insert into. The info additions
>  > want to all move further up; the sorting there isn't on a "related to one
>  > another" basis afaics.
> 
> I moved the info additions further up to respect the alphabetical order 
> as you requested.
> Everything else seems to fit into place from my perspective. I probably 
> misunderstood what you meant.
> Please could you be more specific to what else should be moved and where 
> by pointing it directly in the patch ?

Well, I said "In all of the doc changes" and I meant exactly that. Every
single hunk looked to have this issue.

If you want me to comment directly on a patch, please send such patches
not (only) as attachments, but properly inline. At least my mail UI does
not allow to easily comment on patches when merely attached. See also
how e.g. https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2024-July/135434.html
says "A non-text attachment was scrubbed..." (which may be addressable
by sending as text/plain rather than text/x-patch, yet iirc that still
wouldn't help with the mentioned reply-context issue).

Jan