From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25171 invoked by alias); 29 Apr 2008 07:01:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 25114 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Apr 2008 07:01:04 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from viper.snap.net.nz (HELO viper.snap.net.nz) (202.37.101.25) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 29 Apr 2008 07:00:38 +0000 Received: from kahikatea.snap.net.nz (90.62.255.123.dynamic.snap.net.nz [123.255.62.90]) by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BB833D9FCA; Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:00:35 +1200 (NZST) Received: by kahikatea.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5B38F8FC6D; Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:00:30 +1200 (NZST) From: Nick Roberts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <18454.51085.276103.301144@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:29:00 -0000 To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Regression in exec.c (print_section_info) ? In-Reply-To: <20080429030510.GA28505@adacore.com> References: <18453.10856.678467.961230@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20080429030510.GA28505@adacore.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 22.2.50.2 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-04/txt/msg00652.txt.bz2 > > This works for me, e.g. with "info target" but perhaps there is a bigger > > picture and this line was removed for another reason. > > I reviewed the history of the change, and I think it was an oversight. > The change that removed the newline was meant to get rid of some uses > of current_gdbarch, no more. > > Could you test the attached? I think it's generally better for > internationalization to have one string rather than put together several > string blocks. I doubt it would make much difference in this case, but > might as well. > > I would also like to see a new test if we don't already have one to > prevent this type of regression in the future. It's easy to create a test for this specific case but I think it's very hard to test the exact format of all CLI output in general, and probably not worth the effort. The next regression will likely occur elsewhere. > Please confirm that > you did run the patch against the testcase on at least one architecture. I only have one architecture: my old PC. I get the same testsuite results with and without this change (After adding the semi-colon missing in your patch.). > One last thing: You also forgot to provide a ChangeLog entry. I didn't really think of it as a patch, I was just trying to draw attention to the regression. > But *thank > you* for sending a unified diff - I just can't read context diffs! Actually it was a context diff - so you can read them! They just look similar when lines are added. -- Nick http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob