From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11573 invoked by alias); 3 Nov 2009 19:51:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 11565 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Nov 2009 19:51:38 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:51:33 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01B8110EA3; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 19:51:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C989B1086A; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 19:51:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1N5PPe-0005CN-Rz; Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:51:30 -0500 Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:51:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Joel Brobecker Cc: James Pandavan , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: gdb v7.0 - user defined command's document section - space prefixed end Message-ID: <20091103195130.GA19931@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Joel Brobecker , James Pandavan , gdb@sourceware.org References: <4AE7D19A.70600@googlemail.com> <20091103143305.GN4573@adacore.com> <4AF07D60.2020305@googlemail.com> <20091103194313.GS4573@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091103194313.GS4573@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00032.txt.bz2 On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 11:43:13AM -0800, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > I noticed my scripts didn't work under v7.0 only when I saw this bug in > > launchpad. I guess I am not the only one who has indented "ends" this way > > :) > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gdb/+bug/461594 > > If you could maybe help us a little bit, and track down the author > of the patch that introduced the change of behavior, and then ask > him whether the change was intended? I believe it was: 2009-08-03 Jim Ingham Vladimir Prus Refactor reading of commands * defs.h (read_command_lines_1): Declare. * cli/cli-script.c (read_next_line): Only return string, do not process. (process_next_line): New, extracted from read_next_line. (recurse_read_control_structure): Take a function pointer to the read function. (get_command_line) Pass the read_next_line as reader function into recurse_read_control_structure. (read_command_lines_1): New, extracted from... (read_command_lines): ...here. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery