From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25073 invoked by alias); 12 Dec 2002 05:52:21 -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 25059 invoked from network); 12 Dec 2002 05:52:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 12 Dec 2002 05:52:20 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id gBC5qIf16063; Wed, 11 Dec 2002 23:52:18 -0600 Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 22:17:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200212120552.gBC5qIf16063@duracef.shout.net> To: drow@mvista.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: gdb patch to suppress empty lines, re-visited X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00394.txt.bz2 I've often wished for this feature as a user of gdb. My vote: yes, provided that it doesn't systemically hose the test suite. There are some tests that explicitly check that repeated commands work and it's fine to update those. But I am gun shy of readline and its mysterious refresh algorithms now and I don't want gdb to start issuing "(gdb) ^M(gdb) p^M(gdb) pr^M(gdb) pri..." style output. Michael C