From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11780 invoked by alias); 11 Sep 2002 00:36:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 11772 invoked from network); 11 Sep 2002 00:36:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 11 Sep 2002 00:36:10 -0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (nat-pool-rdu-dmz.redhat.com [172.16.52.200]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8B0Jjw02768 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 20:19:45 -0400 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8B0a6d28002; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 20:36:06 -0400 Received: from romulus.sfbay.redhat.com (remus.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.252]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8B0a5C05573; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 17:36:05 -0700 Received: (from kev@localhost) by romulus.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g8B0a4i18985; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 17:36:04 -0700 Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 17:36:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1020911003603.ZM18984@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Kevin Buettner "Re: [RFC/A] gdb/680: ui_out_reset?" (Sep 10, 5:29pm) References: <1020911002927.ZM18394@localhost.localdomain> To: Kevin Buettner , Keith Seitz , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC/A] gdb/680: ui_out_reset? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00176.txt.bz2 On Sep 10, 5:29pm, Kevin Buettner wrote: > So... I guess I'm favoring explicit calls to ui_out_{list,tuple}_end(). Which comes as something of a surprise to me since I was thinking that a reset mechanism might be a more palatable alternative to my own ui_out proposals... Kevin