From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26341 invoked by alias); 23 Nov 2005 18:39:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 26330 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Nov 2005 18:39:33 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nitzan.inter.net.il (HELO nitzan.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.20) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 23 Nov 2005 18:39:32 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-84-228-140-221.inter.net.il [84.228.140.221]) by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.6.5-GR) with ESMTP id BZW10122 (AUTH halo1); Wed, 23 Nov 2005 20:39:18 +0200 (IST) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:19:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Andrew STUBBS CC: schwab@suse.de, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <43849117.5030805@st.com> (message from Andrew STUBBS on Wed, 23 Nov 2005 15:56:07 +0000) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix 'Undefined command' error message Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <4379EC0A.3060601@st.com> <20051116201300.GA23472@nevyn.them.org> <4382072A.1010402@st.com> <43849117.5030805@st.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00435.txt.bz2 > Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 15:56:07 +0000 > From: Andrew STUBBS > Cc: Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > > > The same clash exists with '+'. Things like "u+1" won't work any more, > > IIUC. > > Hmmm, this looks more like a parser exploit than a feature. Either that > or the TUI can be considered broken. > > Should I leave these characters as TUI only or always allow them? What TUI commands use these problematic characters, and how does TUI avoid the problems pointed out by Andreas? > Does anybody have a strong opinion either way? I will make up my mind after I understand the answers to my questions above. > I would tend to favour leaving it as is. That's the fallback, yes. But I'd like to see if we can do better.