From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A49903858D33 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2023 09:40:57 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org A49903858D33 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1676540457; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=DpRHAlwYeswEq02ZIwGea5w5FFGiQvVv3YdiOHlrlT4=; b=dUneuJKHrtRNKr1l2zlGAdd42Oqh/oIsxhf0TkAjgiQI0fflqQ74BaKvs8uR0UDpaWMJ6V i0roqTDVV47WjecS5p+1PrZ7DFrfqtnS3z01UnSsLM6RfYp1AtNL8tCazvJ3qweyumflJn YlEUxXhePWwsLkJE6TI1SrKook0lz3I= Received: from mail-qk1-f197.google.com (mail-qk1-f197.google.com [209.85.222.197]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id us-mta-398-9N_zKnm4MJ-ekrXQsWJPMw-1; Thu, 16 Feb 2023 04:40:55 -0500 X-MC-Unique: 9N_zKnm4MJ-ekrXQsWJPMw-1 Received: by mail-qk1-f197.google.com with SMTP id c9-20020a05620a11a900b0072a014ecc4aso838408qkk.18 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2023 01:40:55 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:subject:from:content-language :references:cc:to:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=DpRHAlwYeswEq02ZIwGea5w5FFGiQvVv3YdiOHlrlT4=; b=8Ad2nx4yTheVVjJMOUDQOWG4sg8aB+i+9+RF2ZuWddjc5fiSAQBhY65d04XLQhoWms XR/Fz+b5nzlnvJuu7f1Jeo7LbJxzLi4Wg2wAuOUQCWeYjvsPScW4sVBPOV9xDJR9mbCI r8l6OBigIB9HD99b/3hj9YBsZeQo2Ie25wbJz5UeZ2n4XKGmtvtjbt0it7AZwApeoWUe Cxwe7yH7lJBY2iQpoAYBT0gzjtL3dsqarNMnEyMzHxS+w2YblSvESBHaTRjHnsXLnRtV LsyqFIfJo7zsuzyZQFPXo/ZAg70mstLbO4gtxi8c2c2BDGFsdqrlSQOa6bDsTK4/+AF5 QI9g== X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKVkIoqY0hYTrWeweWlFnea/wsYQQft/3yPdb1HSTAXFmuaXtogg XCcIo+VPK8dBCAu/KbEwA2crAuveU7Rru05hNbnnzK8udmgHMZ1xa8TDCsc+BxIMKZgsxLKTqUr hacOWWZXsRm9XHIlU/ZstbOY= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:1d26:b0:56e:fb1b:3c7d with SMTP id f6-20020a0562141d2600b0056efb1b3c7dmr2547779qvd.34.1676540454693; Thu, 16 Feb 2023 01:40:54 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set/jrXpbAdDXsubO8gvMNy/EzsN3Uhu+koKOqGtSNwuZmTCpWHmIuG/Z1mksXZTEq3uyBpiIIw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:1d26:b0:56e:fb1b:3c7d with SMTP id f6-20020a0562141d2600b0056efb1b3c7dmr2547763qvd.34.1676540454453; Thu, 16 Feb 2023 01:40:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.18] ([79.123.83.169]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b68-20020a37b247000000b0073980414888sm854692qkf.42.2023.02.16.01.40.53 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 16 Feb 2023 01:40:54 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2023 09:40:52 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.7.1 To: Tom Tromey Cc: binutils@sourceware.org References: <20230208071725.3668898-1-tom@tromey.com> <0b385324-e721-e6f5-d3df-aba0153da1c6@redhat.com> <87ttzmbnsk.fsf@tromey.com> From: Nick Clifton Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] Make the BFD info manual a bit prettier In-Reply-To: <87ttzmbnsk.fsf@tromey.com> X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Language: en-GB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,NICE_REPLY_A,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: Hi Tom, > While I like FORTH well enough, I suspect it might be nicer to just > rewrite chew in Python. My first thought is - "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" - as in, what do you gain from rewriting chew ? Is it just so that it is easier to maintain in the future, should bugs be encountered, or to make it easier to add new features, or what ? Don't get me wrong. If there are good reasons for rewriting chew then I am willing to listen, but if it is working as-is then I would prefer to leave well enough alone. > Over in gdb, we've standardized on that for all > our maintainer scripts; the main benefits are that a lot of people know > it and there are plenty of libraries, etc, to use. What do you think of > this? It would add a new dependency for the binutils. Currently there are no python scripts being used to build or test the binutils. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing. But if there are alternatives to using python that would work just as well (bash scipts ?) then maybe that would be better. > Finally, it seems to me that it would be nicer if chew were merely a > documentation extractor. Having it also generate source files seems > unfortunate. For example, things like 'tags' don't work, because the > primary source code is actually in some comment somewhere. It seems > like this could be changed so that code is just code, comments (and > maybe snippets of code) are extracted into the manual, and some of the > generated headers are turned into ordinary headers. WDYT? I am ambivalent. I do not use 'tags' myself, so not having it work on the generated source files is not a big deal for me. But I can see that it would be annoying for people who do use it. I do worry that rewriting this code will introduce new bugs into an area of the binutils that is currently working just fine. If you are passionate about this idea, then please go ahead. But if you have 10 other projects clamouring for your attention, then maybe leave this one on the back-burner. Cheers Nick