From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19217 invoked by alias); 23 Jan 2006 05:15:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 19206 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Jan 2006 05:15:49 -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; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 05:15:47 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1F0u3M-0001Kd-Jq for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 00:15:44 -0500 Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 05:15:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: Clean up "show remote" Message-ID: <20060123051544.GA5009@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20060122201759.GA28863@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: 2006-01/txt/msg00317.txt.bz2 On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 06:38:37AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Also shorten the messages a bit by removing redundancy; either the user > > typed config->title, or it was prefixed to the output already. > > I'm not quite sure I get this. With the current code, "show remote" > outputs lines like this: > > Support for remote protocol `Z0' (software-breakpoint) packet is auto-detected, > currently unknown. > > With your change, the part in parentheses will not be displayed, so > how would the user know that Z0 is a packet that sets software > breakpoints? Instead, you'll get something that looks like the current output of "show print": software-breakpoint-packet: Support for the `Z0' packet is auto-detected, currently unknown I'm trying to cut down on how badly this wraps, since we can't word-wrap in translated messages (is there any way to do that? GCC seems to wrap using spaces even in i18n output; maybe we could do the same, if I am interpreting that right?). > > An alternative if the code in show_remote_cmd is too ugly would be to delete > > "show remote Z-packet". I think we have to leave "set remote Z-packet" - > > it's five years obsoleted but never marked as deprecated and I know people > > are continuing to use it - but the show command is completely redundant. > > I think what you did is fine, but perhaps explain a bit more in > comments about why Z-packet is redundant, and that maybe it should be > removed later on. Willdo (although I don't know if we can reasonably remove the "set" variant - I keep finding new docs suggesting it.) -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery