From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18538 invoked by alias); 3 Jan 2010 08:46:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 18528 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Jan 2010 08:46:32 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (83.163.83.176) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 03 Jan 2010 08:46:27 +0000 Received: from glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o038jvO3018098; Sun, 3 Jan 2010 09:45:57 +0100 (CET) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id o038jrhH012796; Sun, 3 Jan 2010 09:45:53 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 08:46:00 -0000 Message-Id: <201001030845.o038jrhH012796@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: brobecker@adacore.com CC: gdb-patches@cyberfiber.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20100103053213.GA2788@adacore.com> (message from Joel Brobecker on Sun, 3 Jan 2010 09:32:13 +0400) Subject: Re: [RFA/i387] improve the output of 'info float' (was: "Re: gdb-patch mailing list") References: <4B3E4DC6.7020901@cyberfiber.org> <20100102043704.GR548@adacore.com> <4B3F03C4.1040104@cyberfiber.org> <4B3F083C.2080300@cyberfiber.org> <20100102093213.GX2788@adacore.com> <20100102093302.GA12123@adacore.com> <4B3F252A.30504@cyberfiber.org> <20100102111708.GV548@adacore.com> <4B3F3442.60900@cyberfiber.org> <20100103053213.GA2788@adacore.com> 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: 2010-01/txt/msg00039.txt.bz2 > Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 09:32:13 +0400 > From: Joel Brobecker > > Michael, > > I changed the subject to something meaningful; you have a *much* higher > chance of attracting the eye of the appropriate maintainer if you use > descriptive subjects. Yup. I didn't notice it. So either I didn't receive the origional mail or I deleted it immediately based on the subject. Can you send the diff again? > I will let Mark tell you whether he likes your change of output or not. > Personally, I liked the previous output better - much more compact > and easier to read, there are too many decorations in your proposed > output and it's harder to isolate the relevant information. If you send your diff again, can you include an example of how the output looks? I must warn you that I'm likely to agree with Joel here though.