Re: PR11067 patch

[Chris Moller <cmoller at redhat dot com>]

On 02/09/10 18:48, Tom Tromey wrote:
> My reason for not wanting this, aside from lack of any precedent, is
> based on my belief that the differences are aesthetic and not
> functional.  That leads me to conclude that in this case the cost

But what's the cost?  Functionally, it consists mostly of replacing an 
fputs_filtered with a vfprintf_filtered, so the performance hit is 
negligible, and the patch adds maybe a hundred lines of code, most of it 
in setting up the set enum-fmt command and translating the format strings.

> of another gdb option is outweighed by the triviality of the issue.
>    

Yep, so this is my last comment on the matter.