RE: [PATCH][contrib]: support json output from check_GNU_style_lib.py

2025-04-09 Thread Tamar Christina
Ping > -Original Message- > From: Tamar Christina > Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 3:30 PM > To: Jonathan Wakely ; Filip Kastl > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; nd > Subject: RE: [PATCH][contrib]: support json output from check_GNU_style_lib.py > > Hi Both, >

RE: [PATCH][contrib]: support json output from check_GNU_style_lib.py

2024-07-24 Thread Vladimir Miloserdov
Hi Tamar, A few suggestions below. >diff --git a/contrib/check_GNU_style_lib.py b/contrib/check_GNU_style_lib.py >index >>6dbe4b53559c63d2e0276d0ff88619cd2f7f8e06..ab21ed4607593668ab95f24715295a41ac7d8>a21 > 100755 >--- a/contrib/check_GNU_style_lib.py >+++ b/contrib/check_GNU_style_lib.py >@@

Re: [PATCH][contrib]: support json output from check_GNU_style_lib.py

2024-07-24 Thread Filip Kastl
> How about this formatting, I tend to find it a bit easier to read even. > I also updated the location numbering to be numerical so, removed the quotes. > > Ok for master? > > Thanks, > Tamar > > +elif format == 'json': > +fn = lambda x: x.error_message > +i = 1 > +r

RE: [PATCH][contrib]: support json output from check_GNU_style_lib.py

2024-07-23 Thread Tamar Christina
Hi Both, > -Original Message- > From: Jonathan Wakely > Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 3:21 PM > To: Filip Kastl > Cc: Tamar Christina ; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; nd > > Subject: Re: [PATCH][contrib]: support json output from check_GNU_style_lib.py > > On Mon,

Re: [PATCH][contrib]: support json output from check_GNU_style_lib.py

2024-07-22 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On Mon, 22 Jul 2024 at 14:54, Filip Kastl wrote: > > Hi Tamar, > > I wanted to try reviewing a patch and this seemed simple enough so I gave it a > shot. Hopefully this saves some time of the maintainer that eventually > approves this :). > > I don't see any bug in the code. I also tried running

Re: [PATCH][contrib]: support json output from check_GNU_style_lib.py

2024-07-22 Thread Filip Kastl
Hi Tamar, I wanted to try reviewing a patch and this seemed simple enough so I gave it a shot. Hopefully this saves some time of the maintainer that eventually approves this :). I don't see any bug in the code. I also tried running it on my own input and the output was correct. So functionally