From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9138 invoked by alias); 29 Nov 2014 11:42:10 -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 9126 invoked by uid 89); 29 Nov 2014 11:42:09 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.7 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; Sat, 29 Nov 2014 11:42:08 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DBB011657A; Sat, 29 Nov 2014 06:42:06 -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 PHJ6sZBuFuZq; Sat, 29 Nov 2014 06:42:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC94311654B; Sat, 29 Nov 2014 06:42:05 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2E73E40F79; Sat, 29 Nov 2014 15:42:03 +0400 (RET) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2014 11:42:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Simon Marchi Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, simon.marchi@polymtl.ca Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] python extended prompt: Use os.getcwd() instead of os.getcwdu() Message-ID: <20141129114203.GN5042@adacore.com> References: <1416976561-1927-1-git-send-email-simon.marchi@ericsson.com> <20141127090037.GG5042@adacore.com> <54789982.5020604@ericsson.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <54789982.5020604@ericsson.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SW-Source: 2014-11/txt/msg00732.txt.bz2 > > I'd like to have other people's opinion on this, as I am not sure. > > > > I _think_ that the patch is not making things worse for us, > > while making things a little better in situations as the above. > > So, based on that, I'd be inclined to apply it. > > > > However, I think the long term fix would be, I believe, to switch > > the entire thing to unicode. With Python3, it's automatic, but > > with Python2, we might have to add 'u'-s on every piece of string > > in the module, and also add some conversions here and there. > > That's why I am thinking that the long term fix should be a blocker > > for this patch. > > > > Thoughts? > > An eventual switch to use unicode everywhere would certainly undo this > patch. However, I don't see the point in leaving the broken code as-is, > unless there are imminent plans to make that switch happen. That's exactly my thinking. But not being very familiar with this area, and the handling of unicode, I would like to give others an opportunity to jump in. Let's wait another week, and see if we get additional feedback. If not, we'll push the patch. -- Joel