From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21500 invoked by alias); 3 Nov 2009 14:33:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 21490 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Nov 2009 14:33:18 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:33:13 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43C2F2BAC7C; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 09:33:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id n4gFgHO0L4u9; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 09:33:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BA512BAB9F; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 09:33:11 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 37B17F5905; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 06:33:05 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:33:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: James Pandavan Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: gdb v7.0 - user defined command's document section - space prefixed end Message-ID: <20091103143305.GN4573@adacore.com> References: <4AE7D19A.70600@googlemail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4AE7D19A.70600@googlemail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-11/txt/msg00016.txt.bz2 > Assuming v7.0's has the correct and intended behavior (as it appears to > be so), shouldn't the document mention it? > (http://sourceware.org/gdb/current/onlinedocs/gdb_24.html#SEC249) Or am > I referring to wrong document? I'm not sure whether this change of behavior was intended or not. I wonder how many users indent their GDB scripts the way you did, with the "end" not being on the first column... For now, perhaps we should document the fact that we expect the "end" keyword to be on the first column of the line. I'm also wondering whether we should consider allowing white spaces before the end in the comment as well. It would make us backwards-compatible with previous versions. -- Joel