From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 628 invoked by alias); 14 Sep 2009 16:06:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 619 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Sep 2009 16:06:35 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:06:27 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EFFF2BAB4F; Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:06:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id HATLFOhx7o15; Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:06:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13B1A2BAB64; Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:06:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8F297F589B; Mon, 14 Sep 2009 09:06:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:06:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Marc Khouzam Cc: 'Pedro Alves' , "'gdb-patches@sourceware.org'" Subject: Re: Another proposal for frontends and queries. Message-ID: <20090914160613.GH8327@adacore.com> References: <20090914140910.GD8327@adacore.com> <200909141548.53578.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20090914150843.GF8327@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) 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: 2009-09/txt/msg00406.txt.bz2 > Thinking back, I posted a patch for that solution > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2009-07/msg00125.html > but Hui was worried about tui > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2009-07/msg00132.html > > Maybe that is not such a problem? I re-read Hui's answer, and it sounds like he thought that you were suggesting we *remove* the query in in TUI mode, whereas you were just suggesting to change the default to yes. I don't think that TUI mode is going to be a problem (this is no different, as far as I can tell, from all the other yes-defaulted queries that we already have). -- Joel