[PATCH V6 1/3] gdb: support for eBPF

[Simon Marchi]

On 2020-08-05 5:21 a.m., Andrew Burgess wrote:
> I was thinking about this last night and I realised that "quality" was
> absolutely the wrong word for me to use, so I apologise for that.
> 
> The issue here is not what is good (or quality) vs bad, which is what
> I implied.  As you said, your code is perfectly valid C++.
> 
> What I should have said is that your preferences don't take precedent
> over the projects agreed coding standard.  There are many
> non-functional alternatives to the current coding standard, but
> people are not free to just go with their personal preferences.  We
> all stick to some agreed rules, and hopefully, over time we end up
> with a consistent looking code base.

I completely agree with you, in practice I just didn't want to enter an argument about it.

Simon