From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29934 invoked by alias); 2 Nov 2010 18:58:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 29926 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Nov 2010 18:58:44 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 18:58:38 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3708C2BACB5; Tue, 2 Nov 2010 14:58:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 21QDngP16LMa; Tue, 2 Nov 2010 14:58:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC24D2BAC64; Tue, 2 Nov 2010 14:58:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C3AADF588F; Tue, 2 Nov 2010 11:58:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 18:58:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Doug Evans Cc: Jan Kratochvil , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Ken Werner , Tom Tromey , Pedro Alves Subject: Re: [doc RFA] Switch to GCC coding style Message-ID: <20101102185830.GH2492@adacore.com> References: <201010221920.30046.ken@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20101026195747.GE2847@adacore.com> <20101027190417.GA19067@host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <201010272020.51386.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20101102165134.GA19296@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20101102180110.GB2492@adacore.com> <20101102181003.GA25177@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-11/txt/msg00043.txt.bz2 > On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Jan Kratochvil > wrote: > > The current code is not strictly compliant to any standard anyway. > > I dunno. Sure the code deviates here and there, and some things > aren't specified, but there is a standard and where there is one > strictness is pretty much followed. I'm personally happy with whatever might might come up. I'd like to have a link in the Wiki for easy access and update, if at all possible. If we want to refer to the GCC Coding Conventions and then add our own difference later, that's fine. On the other hand, I don't see the conventions changing all that much over time, so a bit of duplication to put it all in one page isn't so bad... (IMO) -- Joel