From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4003 invoked by alias); 13 Dec 2002 21:29:15 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 3953 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2002 21:29:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail-out1.apple.com) (17.254.0.52) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 Dec 2002 21:29:12 -0000 Received: from mailgate2.apple.com (A17-129-100-225.apple.com [17.129.100.225]) by mail-out1.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id gBDLTCw17786 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2002 13:29:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from scv3.apple.com (scv3.apple.com) by mailgate2.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Fri, 13 Dec 2002 13:29:11 -0800 Received: from bothner.com (il0102b-dhcp138.apple.com [17.201.26.188]) by scv3.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id gBDLTBf14634; Fri, 13 Dec 2002 13:29:11 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3DFA4D38.50409@bothner.com> Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 13:36:00 -0000 From: Per Bothner User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2b) Gecko/20021016 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Carlton CC: Michael Snyder , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: gdb patch to suppress empty lines, re-visited References: <3DF6CDC2.5050105@bothner.com> <3DF7C9FF.63429C4D@redhat.com> <3DFA356F.6000405@bothner.com> In-Reply-To: <3DF6CDC2.5050105@bothner.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00436.txt.bz2 David Carlton wrote: > I don't know if I like it or not, and I don't think I'll know until > I've actually tried it. My first reaction is slightly negative, and > I'm not at all sure how well it will work with XEmacs's GDB mode: if I > do a bunch of steps through a function, I get output like this: > > (gdb) s > (gdb) > (gdb) > (gdb) > (gdb) > (gdb) > (gdb) > > because the mode isn't showing me the source code information in that > buffer (since it's available in another buffer), and I can't imagine > your patch doing anything good to that output. But it doesn't do anything bad either. My patch just sets a readline flag, and my understanding is that Emacs gdb mode does not use readline. (Exception: if you use the unmaintained tgud.el, which uses term.el's terminal emulator. I'd be surprised if anybody even knows about it!) > (I have no idea what > GNU Emacs's GDB mode looks like: for some reason, XEmacs uses a > different (older?) one.) So if your patch would change the output in > this situation, I'm dubious. But maybe it wouldn't; I'm not sure if > the ISATTY (instream) guard would protect against this situation. It should. -- --Per Bothner per@bothner.com http://www.bothner.com/per/