From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30401 invoked by alias); 14 Nov 2004 23:37:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 30331 invoked from network); 14 Nov 2004 23:37:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO Cantor.suse.de) (195.135.220.2) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 14 Nov 2004 23:37:17 -0000 Received: from hermes.suse.de (hermes-ext.suse.de [195.135.221.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168/168 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by Cantor.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id D444A10AB092; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 00:13:09 +0100 (CET) To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: tromey@redhat.com, drow@false.org, otto.wyss@orpatec.ch, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: GDB doesn't show the correct line References: <40D5E480.4A68163@orpatec.ch> <20040620202929.GA17216@nevyn.them.org> <40D7212F.E68A9D61@orpatec.ch> <20040621175928.GA13407@nevyn.them.org> <40D725AF.FC2AAF3A@orpatec.ch> <20041113201803.GA21320@nevyn.them.org> <01c4c9c9$Blat.v2.2.2$913fbf20@zahav.net.il> <20041113214612.GA30909@nevyn.them.org> <01c4ca89$Blat.v2.2.2$e9842b60@zahav.net.il> <01c4ca99$Blat.v2.2.2$124c16c0@zahav.net.il> From: Andreas Schwab X-Yow: .. So, if we convert SUPPLY-SIDE SOYBEAN FUTURES into HIGH-YIELD T-BILL INDICATORS, the PRE-INFLATIONARY risks will DWINDLE to a rate of 2 SHOPPING SPREES per EGGPLANT!! Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 04:41:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <01c4ca99$Blat.v2.2.2$124c16c0@zahav.net.il> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Mon, 15 Nov 2004 00:26:02 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.110002 (No Gnus v0.2) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00141.txt.bz2 "Eli Zaretskii" writes: >> Cc: tromey@redhat.com, drow@false.org, otto.wyss@orpatec.ch, >> gdb@sources.redhat.com >> From: Andreas Schwab >> Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 22:24:28 +0100 >> >> But the more problematic cases would be \n\r or \r\r\n. > > Why are these more problematic? Because they look like non-canonical line endings, but can be interpreted as two line endings when using a strict interpretation. The first one could be a Unix newline followed by a Mac newline, or a non-canonical DOS newline (should non-canonical DOS newlines be recognized?). The second one could be a Mac newline followed by a DOS newline, or a spurious CR followed by a DOS newline (should spurious CRs be ignored?). Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de SuSE Linux AG, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 "And now for something completely different."