This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Regression in exec.c (print_section_info) ?

 > > This works for me, e.g. with "info target" but perhaps there is a bigger
 > > picture and this line was removed for another reason.
 > I reviewed the history of the change, and I think it was an oversight.
 > The change that removed the newline was meant to get rid of some uses
 > of current_gdbarch, no more.
 > Could you test the attached? I think it's generally better for
 > internationalization to have one string rather than put together several
 > string blocks. I doubt it would make much difference in this case, but
 > might as well.
 > I would also like to see a new test if we don't already have one to
 > prevent this type of regression in the future. 

It's easy to create a test for this specific case but I think it's very hard to
test the exact format of all CLI output in general, and probably not worth the
effort.  The next regression will likely occur elsewhere.

 >                                                 Please confirm that
 > you did run the patch against the testcase on at least one architecture.

I only have one architecture: my old PC.  I get the same testsuite results
with and without this change (After adding the semi-colon missing in your

 > One last thing: You also forgot to provide a ChangeLog entry. 

I didn't really think of it as a patch, I was just trying to draw attention to
the regression.

 >                                                               But *thank
 > you* for sending a unified diff - I just can't read context diffs!

Actually it was a context diff - so you can read them!  They just look similar
when lines are added.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]