From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4AAD23861028 for ; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 13:00:58 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 4AAD23861028 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=simark.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=simark@simark.ca Received: from [10.0.0.11] (173-246-6-90.qc.cable.ebox.net [173.246.6.90]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 65B411E554; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 09:00:57 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 1/3] gdb: support for eBPF To: Andrew Burgess , "Jose E. Marchesi" Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" References: <20200803140237.14476-1-jose.marchesi@oracle.com> <20200803140237.14476-2-jose.marchesi@oracle.com> <87o8nrengw.fsf@oracle.com> <20200804134154.GV853475@embecosm.com> <87ft928nm8.fsf@oracle.com> <20200805092112.GA853475@embecosm.com> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2020 09:00:49 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200805092112.GA853475@embecosm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: fr Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2020 13:00:59 -0000 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