From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 71602 invoked by alias); 26 Aug 2019 14:08:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 71594 invoked by uid 89); 26 Aug 2019 14:08:02 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy= X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 14:08:01 +0000 Received: from mail-wr1-f72.google.com (mail-wr1-f72.google.com [209.85.221.72]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A1C836887 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 14:08:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wr1-f72.google.com with SMTP id m7so9747930wrw.22 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 07:08:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:8a0:f913:f700:4c97:6d52:2cea:997b? ([2001:8a0:f913:f700:4c97:6d52:2cea:997b]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b136sm31040367wme.18.2019.08.26.07.07.57 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 26 Aug 2019 07:07:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/15] More TUI Refactorings To: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20190821022535.9762-1-tom@tromey.com> From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <1efcbd41-aca3-ebea-87f6-9f65a316e91e@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 14:08:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190821022535.9762-1-tom@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2019-08/txt/msg00591.txt.bz2 On 8/21/19 3:25 AM, Tom Tromey wrote: > Here is another series of TUI refactorings. There should be no > user-visible changes in this series (patch #1 changes a message, but I > don't believe it can actually be seen). > > I tested each one using the gdb.tui tests. This worked here, though > as we learned recently, at least empty.exp is not very reliable. > > There's about one more series of this size waiting to be submitted, > plus one (or maybe two) patches that change the TUI in small > user-visible ways. LGTM. Nice to see the number of rerender/refresh methods down. Thanks, Pedro Alves