From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Fernando Nasser To: Elena Zannoni Cc: David Whedon , gdb-patches@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: [REPOST #2] patch: command deprecator Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 14:37:00 -0000 Message-id: <38DA9CC2.62A9D189@cygnus.com> References: <38DA9AE8.64AF8635@cygnus.com> <14554.39919.562287.915864@kwikemart.cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2000-03/msg00513.html Elena Zannoni wrote: > > Fernando Nasser writes: > > Andrew, > > > > I know that there are 3 new functions (and one test proc) in David's patch and it represents an added functionality, but > > the changes are not so big. Is there any chance that we could safely include those without his assignment? > > > > David: Maybe you got it (the assignment to FSF) already? > > > > I saw David's name in the last assignments mail form the FSF. So he's > all set. > Sorry, I missed it. So I will get the command deprecator in. -- Fernando Nasser Red Hat - Toronto E-Mail: fnasser@cygnus.com 2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300 Tel: 416-482-2661 ext. 311 Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9 Fax: 416-482-6299 >From dan@cgsoftware.com Thu Mar 23 14:42:00 2000 From: Daniel Berlin To: Stan Shebs Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.cygnus.com, Fernando Nasser Subject: Re: [RFA]: Apropos patch Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 14:42:00 -0000 Message-id: References: <38DA9495.C41B6448@apple.com> X-SW-Source: 2000-03/msg00514.html Content-length: 1383 On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Stan Shebs wrote: > "Daniel Berlin+list.gdb-patches" wrote: > > > > Okay, new patch attached that does as you ask. > > I added more testcases as well. > > Just four more nits, and then I'll shut up. First, put the void > return type of the functions on lines by themselves - we like > to find function names in column 1. It is that way in my version, i must have fixed that right after sending the patch. >Second, the functions should be static if possible, looks like the helper >function can be at least. Out of curiosity, why? I come from a multithreaded planet, where the idea is to try to make things *not* static if possible :). > Third, please add prototypes at the top of the file. Sure. > Finally, > the help string should probably be rephrased a bit - use the > word "matching" at least, and ideally say "regular expression". > Do help rbreak for an example. howzabout "Search for all commands matching REGEXP"? > > > i now use "apropos ", "apropos apropos", and > > "apropos handle a signal", which tests all the various things that > > could go wrong (excluding screwing up your regex, which will properly > > give you the error from the regex engine), like making sure multiple > > word aproposes work, etc. > > That's excellent - now the testsuite will help protect your new command > from bitrot... > > Stan >