From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12793 invoked by alias); 8 Apr 2007 03:08:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 12784 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Apr 2007 03:08:42 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from return.false.org (HELO return.false.org) (66.207.162.98) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sun, 08 Apr 2007 04:08:40 +0100 Received: from return.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by return.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A8BF4B267 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2007 22:08:38 -0500 (CDT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (dsl093-172-095.pit1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.93.172.95]) by return.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62BD14B262 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2007 22:08:38 -0500 (CDT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HaNld-0004Tl-B4 for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Sat, 07 Apr 2007 23:08:37 -0400 Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 03:08:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add support to control auto-display behavior Message-ID: <20070408030837.GA17203@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20070406110435.GC27568@ns1.anodized.com> <20070407172539.GB24650@caradoc.them.org> <20070407202045.GD27568@ns1.anodized.com> <20070407221841.GA5296@caradoc.them.org> <20070407222715.GE27568@ns1.anodized.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070407222715.GE27568@ns1.anodized.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14+cvs20070313 (2007-03-13) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-04/txt/msg00054.txt.bz2 On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 03:27:15PM -0700, Christopher Layne wrote: > Sure. I also didn't think a knob was needed for the behavior - but also > considered how it may affect gdb output scrapers / automating tools if > something changed, so just went ahead and made it one. This is a reasonable concern, and I'm glad you thought about it. But I have a very simple belief: at one point, parsing the GDB CLI's output was the only reasonable way to control it, but that hasn't been true for years. So, I'm worried about compatibility where it will affect GDB/MI and where it will confuse human beings, but not where it will change the CLI output confusingly to programs. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery