GNU bug report logs - #74946
[PATCH] * lisp/files.el (auto-mode-alist): Include gdbinit too

Previous Next

Full log

Message #23 received at 74946 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Björn Bidar <bjorn.bidar <at> thaodan.de>
Cc: acorallo <at> gnu.org, stefankangas <at> gmail.com, 74946 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#74946: [PATCH] * lisp/files.el (auto-mode-alist): Include
 gdbinit too
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2024 08:46:12 +0200

> From: Björn Bidar <bjorn.bidar <at> thaodan.de>
> Cc: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>,  74946 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
>   acorallo <at> gnu.org
> Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2024 23:29:00 +0200
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > It looks innocent enough, but at this point I'd like to limit changes
> > on the release branch to only really urgent and important ones (or
> > documentation).  We have lived with this outdated code for several
> > years (GDB 11.1 was released in 2022), so this change doesn't look
> > urgent to me.
> 
> Not really that urgent but to new users of Emacs it would be
> beneficial if things would work out of the box. I thought at first Emacs
> just didn't support the file.

I understand, but my main worry is the potential unintended
consequences.  Regexps are tricky, as we all know.

> > Btw, if we want to fix this entry, we should perhaps do a more
> > thorough job.  For example, on my system I have files with the
> > following base names:
> >
> >   .gdbinit.in
> >   .gdbinit
> >   _gdbinit (for MS-DOS)
> >   gdb.ini (likewise)
> 
> Is this a gdbinit file? The extension looks off.

Yes, gdb.ini is a gdbinit file.  But if supporting it is problematic
or causes too many complications, I'm okay with not supporting that
particular file name.

> >   gdbinit
> >   gdbinit.in
> >   SOMETHING-gdbinit
> >   .gdbinit.loader
> >   gdbinit-history.exp (not a GDB init file)
> >   gdbinit.5 (likewise)
> >   gdbinit.c (likewise)
> >   .gdbinit.py.in (likewise)
> >
> > Should we improve the regexp to DTRT for those additional files, but
> > without false positives?
> 
> With Stefan correction all these without extension match. What are the
> official extensions? gdbinit.in sounds like a normal extension for
> gdbinit template in the source but the others such as gdb.ini look off.

So we should at least allow the ".in" extension?  Also, note that the
current regexp doesn't end with a \\' so it could be a partial match
with, say, /foo/bar/gdbinit-but-not-really.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.