From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12928 invoked by alias); 22 Feb 2016 16:20:28 -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 12682 invoked by uid 89); 22 Feb 2016 16:20:25 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=newlines 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 (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 16:20:22 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F4C580518; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 16:20:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from host1.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-55.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.55]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u1MGKHIO027701 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 22 Feb 2016 11:20:19 -0500 Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 16:20:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Simon Marchi Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: [commit] [rfc patch+7.11] gdb-gdb.py: SyntaxError: Missing parentheses in call to 'print' Message-ID: <20160222162016.GA16995@host1.jankratochvil.net> References: <20160222155646.GA1869@host1.jankratochvil.net> <56CB337B.3060606@ericsson.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <56CB337B.3060606@ericsson.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-02/txt/msg00658.txt.bz2 On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 17:12:43 +0100, Simon Marchi wrote: > That means Python notices the error at parse time, not execution time. It could > very well be that you don't see the warning because that line is not actually > executed. OK, you are right. In fact I had such an idea and I did test it but I realize now my test was flawed. Therefore checked in as obvious. The newlines may be still wrong there, not sure, but that is a different bug+fix. master: ac46107c5c781894e013b10cd9fb5c98a8393d26 7.11: 3d58f8997229b9045899dd306a47a3c27d03a9fd Thanks, Jan