From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4248 invoked by alias); 21 Apr 2004 15:53:52 -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 4150 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2004 15:53:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 Apr 2004 15:53:50 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.32 #1 (Debian)) id 1BGK2o-0001ng-8J; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 11:53:50 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 15:53:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfc] Bug fixes for CLI "show" command Message-ID: <20040421155350.GA6885@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20040419200005.GA16011@nevyn.them.org> <40855F1E.9080906@gnu.org> <20040421145917.GA4980@nevyn.them.org> <40869808.50409@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <40869808.50409@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-SW-Source: 2004-04/txt/msg00490.txt.bz2 On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 11:49:28AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 01:34:22PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > >>>>>- ui_out_field_string (uiout, "prefix", list->prefixname + 5); > >>>>>- cmd_show_list (*list->prefixlist, from_tty, list->prefixname + 5); > >>>>>+ char *new_prefix = strstr (list->prefixname, "show ") + 5; > >> > >>> > >>>This is no better - i18n. > > > > > >Well, "this is no better from an i18n perspective". That doesn't mean > >it isn't better! I'm trying to solve the cosmetic bug, not clear the > >road for later i18n, which will require changing all this anyway. > > If we touch any i18n breakage, we should fix it. Just like, if we break > any deprecated code, we should fix it. I am not interested in reworking the interface of widely used functions to support i18n, when there is no comprehensive plan or anyone working on i18n support for GDB. Is that really unreasonable? It's just wasted work! -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer