From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2700 invoked by alias); 11 Dec 2002 23:50:16 -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 2693 invoked from network); 11 Dec 2002 23:50:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 11 Dec 2002 23:50:15 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18MIUl-0007sO-00 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2002 19:50:36 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18MGd7-0001eL-00 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2002 18:51:05 -0500 Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 16:01:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: gdb patch to suppress empty lines, re-visited Message-ID: <20021211235105.GA6325@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <3DF6CDC2.5050105@bothner.com> <3DF7C9FF.63429C4D@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3DF7C9FF.63429C4D@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00386.txt.bz2 On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 03:27:59PM -0800, Michael Snyder wrote: > Per Bothner wrote: > > > > This is a revision of a patch originally from 1999: > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/1999-q2/msg00093.html > > > > I'm not sure if the patch in top.c does anything, since I don't > > know when/if readline is called from command_line_input. > > > > OK to check in? With or without the top.c change? > > -- > > --Per Bothner > > For posterity, this changes the console output when you are > repeating a command a bunch of times by hitting return. > It changes, eg. > 1038 : call 0x138818 > (gdb) > 0xe103c : st %i1, [ %fp + 0x48 ] > (gdb) > 0xe1040 : st %o0, [ %fp + -464 ] > (gdb) > > to > > (gdb) x/i $pc > 0xe1038 : call 0x138818 > 0xe103c : st %i1, [ %fp + 0x48 ] > 0xe1040 : st %o0, [ %fp + -464 ] > (gdb) > > Per, I think the first discussion needs to be, > do we agree that we want this change? This changes > visible behavior, quite broadly. I'll put in my vote for "yes, or at least as an option". -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer