From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13330 invoked by alias); 23 Nov 2005 21:07:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 13321 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Nov 2005 21:07:40 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Wed, 23 Nov 2005 21:07:39 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1Ef1q0-0005zw-SU; Wed, 23 Nov 2005 16:07:32 -0500 Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 18:11:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Andrew STUBBS , schwab@suse.de, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix 'Undefined command' error message Message-ID: <20051123210732.GA22982@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , Andrew STUBBS , schwab@suse.de, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20051116201300.GA23472@nevyn.them.org> <4382072A.1010402@st.com> <43849117.5030805@st.com> <4384BD74.1060600@st.com> <20051123191940.GA20765@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2005-11/txt/msg00442.txt.bz2 On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 09:53:46PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 14:19:40 -0500 > > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > Cc: Eli Zaretskii , schwab@suse.de, > > gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > > > > > The TUI does *not* avoid the problems pointed out by Andreas. 'u+1' must > > > be written 'u +1'. The latter syntax seems more correct to me in any > > > case - the '+' is part of the operand, not the command. That said, many > > > people are probably used to using the command like Andreas. > > > > I had no idea this was possible (or what it did, until I tried it)... I > > wouldn't cry about breaking it if there was any benefit. > > Sorry, Daniel, I don't think I get what you mean. Could you please > elaborate on what you suggest we do? "u+1" in current versions of GDB is the same as "until +1" or "u +1", which is "until the next source line". I don't believe this is documented behavior, and I also don't think it's particularly valuable behavior - just an implementation accident. So if "u+1" returned 'unknown command "u+1"' instead, I think that would be an acceptable change, especially if it reduces some special-cases in the handling of commands. Right now it works in CLI, but not in TUI: (gdb) u+1 Undefined command: "u". Try "help". -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC