From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id ui2pM1TTyWL2Wg8AWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 09 Jul 2022 15:13:24 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id C38BA1E22D; Sat, 9 Jul 2022 15:13:24 -0400 (EDT) Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; secure) header.d=sourceware.org header.i=@sourceware.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=k88RcSOO; dkim-atps=neutral X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RDNS_DYNAMIC,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from sourceware.org (ip-8-43-85-97.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 728771E220 for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2022 15:13:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D232385BAF8 for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2022 19:13:24 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 1D232385BAF8 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1657394004; bh=kgST9WPPd3lI116G06+GJ1cbpwpCYL88Diz2T+tZXLE=; h=Date:To:In-Reply-To:Subject:References:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=k88RcSOOKsQgWGr9bsEVS3Fw7nOpHifGRCbjnMwxE/lavKpufK3CpGj9YaSIeS+S4 5NpUZzHbfJGDRq+4cZN58kC9ASpLEHT0TV38dRYQl3Xx86BI14tBybbGohkUWsbsKn le8hHXPxZ5dw3jaS55WjEJwkgnEmndF+1TaxN40k= Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [209.51.188.92]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 918AE38582A7 for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2022 19:13:05 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 918AE38582A7 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:48570) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oAFqx-0007xe-Rg; Sat, 09 Jul 2022 15:10:55 -0400 Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=2830 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oAFqx-0002Hx-BB; Sat, 09 Jul 2022 15:10:55 -0400 Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2022 22:10:39 +0300 Message-Id: <83v8s614r4.fsf@gnu.org> To: Andrei Pikas In-Reply-To: <20220709190545.3854520-1-gdb@mail.api.win> (message from Andrei Pikas on Sat, 9 Jul 2022 22:05:45 +0300) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add style tui-reverse command to colorize TUI current line. References: <20220709190545.3854520-1-gdb@mail.api.win> X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Eli Zaretskii via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb@mail.api.win, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" > From: Andrei Pikas > Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2022 22:05:45 +0300 > Cc: Andrei Pikas > > Adds the ability to customize the colors of the current line of code in TUI. > This may be desirable when code highlighting is enabled. Because higlighted > keywords in dark blue color are indistinguishable from a black background > (which is the default inverse color for a white terminal). > Here is a screenshot of old and new behavior > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1doYNdKRlEjsROUaP8DbanV4bBiam7EQl/view > --- > gdb/NEWS | 4 ++++ > gdb/cli/cli-style.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > gdb/cli/cli-style.h | 3 +++ > gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo | 3 +++ > gdb/tui/tui-io.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---- > gdb/tui/tui-win.c | 1 + > 6 files changed, 77 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) The documentation parts are okay, but I wonder why call this "tu-reverse" when it is intended for the current line. Why not "tui-current-line" or somesuch? Thanks.