From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13528 invoked by alias); 13 Dec 2002 20:44:06 -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 13520 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2002 20:44:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 13 Dec 2002 20:44:06 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gBDKHGP05471 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2002 15:17:16 -0500 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gBDKh6D15614; Fri, 13 Dec 2002 15:43:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn50-3.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.3]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gBDKh5Y02528; Fri, 13 Dec 2002 15:43:05 -0500 Received: (from kev@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) id gBDKh0W22511; Fri, 13 Dec 2002 13:43:00 -0700 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 12:44:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1021213204300.ZM22510@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Andrew Cagney "Re: gdb patch to suppress empty lines, re-visited" (Dec 13, 3:34pm) References: <3DF6CDC2.5050105@bothner.com> <3DF7C9FF.63429C4D@redhat.com> <3DFA356F.6000405@bothner.com> <3DFA4468.8070205@redhat.com> To: Per Bothner Subject: Re: gdb patch to suppress empty lines, re-visited Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00430.txt.bz2 On Dec 13, 3:34pm, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > A few people have expresses themselves in favor, and none > > have been opposed. I don't know if that counts as a consensus ... > > Personally, I don't like it :-) At least not as a default. I wouldn't want it as the default either. I think it'd be great as an option though. Kevin