From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7736 invoked by alias); 20 Dec 2013 03:38:27 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 7725 invoked by uid 89); 20 Dec 2013 03:38:27 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: rock.gnat.com Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 03:38:25 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23FDE1165E1; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 22:39:04 -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 Zfkb-L4LbqSW; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 22:39:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B34D81165DD; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 22:39:03 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E9CF4E069D; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 07:38:18 +0400 (RET) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 03:38:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: asmwarrior Cc: GDB Development Subject: Re: document issue about GDB/MI output syntax Message-ID: <20131220033818.GL26143@adacore.com> References: <52B2A623.2070009@gmail.com> <20131219180743.GJ26143@adacore.com> <52B39C3D.9000805@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <52B39C3D.9000805@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SW-Source: 2013-12/txt/msg00069.txt.bz2 > You see there are "nl"s after each line of GDB's message. Thanks for doing the testing. I think, at this point, that it's best to just send a doc update to gdb-patches. Eli is extremely diligent in reviewing code, but make sure to wait for either Eli or one of the maintainers to explicitly double-check that the update better matches the code, and that the code is doing what we wanted it to be (ie, that we're not turning a bug into law :-)). Intuitively, I very much doubt there is a bug in the code, but it's easy to be careful - just need a little bit of quiet time to think. -- Joel