From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3451 invoked by alias); 13 Feb 2015 18:05:42 -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 3437 invoked by uid 89); 13 Feb 2015 18:05:41 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 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; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 18:05:40 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t1DI5VdN020538 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 13 Feb 2015 13:05:31 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t1DI5Tfj004433; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 13:05:30 -0500 Message-ID: <54DE3CE9.1090802@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 18:05:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Evans , Joel Brobecker CC: Eli Zaretskii , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add support for embedding scripts in .debug_gdb_scripts. References: <83ppaf3oe6.fsf@gnu.org> <83egqu1u69.fsf@gnu.org> <8361c5254p.fsf@gnu.org> <83egqsys6z.fsf@gnu.org> <20150119144921.GC4041@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-02/txt/msg00347.txt.bz2 On 01/20/2015 04:35 PM, Doug Evans wrote: > I for one would liked to have seen the data to back up > the claim that NUL-terminated is archaic. > It's not that I don't trust someone's judgement, rather it's that that's > the wrong way to impose the change. I think saying NUL instead of "null" is as archaic as saying CR instead of "carriage return", LF instead of "line feed", NL instead of "new line", etc. I mean, maybe archaicness is not really the issue. IMO, it's just a matter of whether we think using the character's control code symbol is OK instead of the full name. I think the decision should be based on that alone. E.g., would we write: "If this section exists, its contents is a list of entries separated by CR NL, specifying scripts to load. The list is terminated with a NUL character." ? Thanks, Pedro Alves