From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11570 invoked by alias); 21 Oct 2013 21:58:45 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 11561 invoked by uid 89); 21 Oct 2013 21:58:44 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 21:58:44 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r9LLwgAr003130 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 17:58:43 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn-113-54.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.54]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r9LLwfaG013779 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 21 Oct 2013 17:58:42 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Phil Muldoon Cc: "gdb-patches\@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [patch][python] Fix python/14513 References: <5239A7E9.8010202@redhat.com> <877gedub9p.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <523A0E4E.3090105@redhat.com> <8738p1uam6.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <524BE7B3.3030805@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 21:58:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <524BE7B3.3030805@redhat.com> (Phil Muldoon's message of "Wed, 02 Oct 2013 10:30:27 +0100") Message-ID: <87mwm2i8vi.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2013-10/txt/msg00672.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Phil" == Phil Muldoon writes: Phil> I am not sure what the resolution is here. At some point we have to Phil> decide whether we have anything valid to print. We can hoist the Phil> fprint into both of these branches, but even in the "else" clause we Phil> have to check if we actually have anything as the fprint adds a Phil> newline to the set documentation: Phil> fprintf_filtered (gdb_stdout, "%s\n", set_doc_string); Phil> What are your thoughts on this? I've been thinking about it more and I don't understand why we want to print anything in the "set" command. I think it's fine if we just don't call a method. What do you think of that? Tom