From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id MPMAO3OeSWgHvQkAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2025 11:19:15 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=simark.ca; s=mail; t=1749655155; bh=Oduin0nnWBnZCXZt6D2HtY/xCrjoFI2mMKPujawz+Tw=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From; b=qcMZQK227rjje3ZkOois8KtcCwN23NIIp1iL4NL0/Ql7uPfp15AiJQsbBTCFQlqBz wxDwcblDQsMRLCODn4pWsM4WB/LCIyIYLZ95Gsp3RQtIwSONBfavqqimLxjxBZmYuh r0td7kjyhJQDZEOD3ET6uHonKJZmgZ3D38hzp9D8= Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id ECAD21E102; Wed, 11 Jun 2025 11:19:15 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.1 (2024-03-25) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.1 required=5.0 tests=ARC_SIGNED,ARC_VALID,BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED,RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=4.0.1 Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=simark.ca header.i=@simark.ca header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mail header.b=Mc4r3bUU; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=simark.ca header.i=@simark.ca header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mail header.b=qGbv4y8X; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from server2.sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 731991E089 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2025 11:19:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B9B9385843F for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2025 15:19:15 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 1B9B9385843F Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key, unprotected) header.d=simark.ca header.i=@simark.ca header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mail header.b=Mc4r3bUU; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=simark.ca header.i=@simark.ca header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mail header.b=qGbv4y8X Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9C4E3858D26 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2025 15:18:41 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org A9C4E3858D26 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=simark.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=simark.ca ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org A9C4E3858D26 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=158.69.221.121 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1749655121; cv=none; b=B/rYZR/zp6nMZy3henrRapRSK+eq6EnCGW2Jw3nnkiIgauCs0wn1A6rigtzb0jgmjEWzrmSkyEpsZPUoOk992STfOEaDjkxfPzirRbiNdKO72lD62eLG1fecVktITJWwynRMNLTIq+I9sBDZyPBnF5JpweAp7g9O5rNjGTSQLnU= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1749655121; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Oduin0nnWBnZCXZt6D2HtY/xCrjoFI2mMKPujawz+Tw=; h=DKIM-Signature:DKIM-Signature:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: Subject:To:From; b=l8t45EmBGyhT3Uv79gOiVzJvZonwsoNGpNWx/SQlRXk4E33FXZ60IdRtkj1DNJFO3s35KgwHON7YEZElabDAjGGc171iAoigcqwpHrJgRNfzZrG14NuZeefEgaiBE06x+fk7euOJ0VN/Xh+rsVEM3N1xdBwAc5J7mB/YglmU0zQ= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org A9C4E3858D26 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=simark.ca; s=mail; t=1749655121; bh=Oduin0nnWBnZCXZt6D2HtY/xCrjoFI2mMKPujawz+Tw=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=Mc4r3bUUCHetH6eWgaKGqh8CeitVdhfHV+QRVusBuOOsNiH7m9UPhKk9PS19b2Qh0 yGygR08wLbYs4xpIVyo419pFSHSp9abuaaOUSgAT6ISvrwrvug7S/ya1vb5HGFbc/5 +8RTChaiDBQh0lMQY/QfKY/rvKtqw9z0KtrVun/8= Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 57ECE1E126; Wed, 11 Jun 2025 11:18:41 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=simark.ca; s=mail; t=1749655119; bh=Oduin0nnWBnZCXZt6D2HtY/xCrjoFI2mMKPujawz+Tw=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=qGbv4y8XzQKuLagB1PzFP9l+vcyl+PkTMA7hU7ITOeCKXejSS767dVdLqdKjdAJHZ v4Hg3YhGVr8TOQioeG2tyYeXVS14P3sYLmUWjOyK/bp69d2qrIWyNFmw9JydjY3lIb RpjRDZxh5YAFFiztpryZVx3LCyBekReQkMU1lBtM= Received: from [172.16.0.192] (192-222-132-26.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.132.26]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 83AF41E089; Wed, 11 Jun 2025 11:18:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2025 11:18:39 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] Allow check-mark to be changed for CLI To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: tromey@adacore.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20250611-emoji-check-mark-v2-0-d299ec101650@adacore.com> <20250611-emoji-check-mark-v2-2-d299ec101650@adacore.com> <5ddb04dd-7e7e-4aa8-8db8-2d3baac169d8@simark.ca> <86sek6gw49.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Language: fr From: Simon Marchi In-Reply-To: <86sek6gw49.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.30 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces~public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org On 6/11/25 11:01 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2025 10:33:56 -0400 >> Cc: Eli Zaretskii >> From: Simon Marchi >> >> I have not read all the discussions about the choice of the character, >> but I just wanted to report that out of the box, this doesn't look very >> good for me (the width of a checkmark isn't equal to the width of a >> character). See attached `checkmark.png`. > > That's because this emoji (as many others) is a wide character and > takes 2 columns on display, and GDB evidently doesn't take that into > account in this table-like display. Yeah, even the non-emoji versions do take up 2 columns, I'm not sure why those don't result in the rest of the line being shifter. I'm also surprised that others didn't see this... GDB uses strlen here to compute the number of spaces to print, in order to align stuff correctly: https://gitlab.com/gnutools/binutils-gdb/-/blob/master/gdb/cli-out.c#L147-168 So it necessarily won't play well with multi-byte characters. > >> Are we allowed to nitpick / bikeshed on the choice of character? My >> preference would be for something a bit more subtle, like an arrow that >> points to the selected thing. See `arrow.png`, which uses U+27A4. I >> find it stylish, and at least on my setup, the width is correct. > > An arrow is not a check-mark, though. Why does it have to be a checkmark? Simon