From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gnu.wildebeest.org (gnu.wildebeest.org [45.83.234.184]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 310CD3858D1E for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 13:07:13 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 310CD3858D1E Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=klomp.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=klomp.org Received: from r6.localdomain (82-217-174-174.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl [82.217.174.174]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gnu.wildebeest.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0123630067DA; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 14:07:11 +0100 (CET) Received: by r6.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B61A73401F4; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 14:07:11 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <35786a0df754fb97b59e460e6da9afc6f9b8c95c.camel@klomp.org> Subject: Re: Any concrete plans after the GDB BoF? From: Mark Wielaard To: Luis Machado , Andrew Burgess Cc: Simon Marchi , Joel Brobecker , Simon Marchi via Gdb Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2023 14:07:11 +0100 In-Reply-To: <65409b73-fc6d-9a89-3541-31eb1a0b0791@arm.com> References: <83485199-965e-7ff5-1dc8-d027b74b56f7@arm.com> <5924814b-2e53-da09-6125-48ac5a5296e7@simark.ca> <87mt5kunum.fsf@redhat.com> <20230212124345.GH2430@gnu.wildebeest.org> <87r0utu6ew.fsf@redhat.com> <65409b73-fc6d-9a89-3541-31eb1a0b0791@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.46.3 (3.46.3-1.fc37) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3029.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,RCVD_IN_BARRACUDACENTRAL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=no 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 Luis, On Mon, 2023-02-13 at 12:52 +0000, Luis Machado wrote: > I suppose that's the point of introducing auto-formatters. If some incorr= ect formatting is > pushed alongside some code, it is not a big deal. But having to manually = chase some format and fix it by hand (as we do now) > before it can go in is potentially worse. >=20 > It is also a burden for reviewing. It doesn't seem like the kind of thing= people should be doing manually at > this point in time. Note that builder.sourceware.org can help with that. If you push a patch to a try builder then the gdb-try-fedora-x86_64 builder will run python black over it (and fail and put a format diff in the output log if it doesn't match): https://sourceware.org/git/?p=3Dbuilder.git;a=3Dblob;f=3Dbuilder/master.cfg= ;hb=3DHEAD#l2735 I am hoping we can automate that with patchwork so that patches will get a fail marker if they don't pass the format checker. Cheers, Mark