From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29896 invoked by alias); 16 Nov 2005 20:00:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 29875 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Nov 2005 20:00:44 -0000 Received: from nitzan.inter.net.il (HELO nitzan.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.20) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Wed, 16 Nov 2005 20:00:44 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-33-244.inter.net.il [80.230.33.244]) by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.6.5-GR) with ESMTP id BYR67062 (AUTH halo1); Wed, 16 Nov 2005 22:00:39 +0200 (IST) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 20:19:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Andrew STUBBS CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <437B2DCC.8020907@st.com> (message from Andrew STUBBS on Wed, 16 Nov 2005 13:02:04 +0000) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix 'Undefined command' error message Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <4379EC0A.3060601@st.com> <437B2DCC.8020907@st.com> Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2005-11/txt/msg00249.txt.bz2 > Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 13:02:04 +0000 > From: Andrew STUBBS > Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > > Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Why is there a need for testing *p to be non-zero? AFAIK, isalnum is > > well defined for a zero argument. > > > > What is the reason for additional tests under TUI? > > > > Is this for some kind of compatibility with XDB? > > I do not know the answer to these questions, although I'm sure I could > look into it. There are already two instances of this code in this file > and each is implemented identically to the others. At least the test for *p non-zero should be removed, I think. > The reason the code is like this here is because it must replicate the > tests in lookup_cmd_1 if it is to give the right message. I do not know > why lookup_cmd_1 is the way it is. Anyone?