From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [209.51.188.92]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E74C385742D for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 16:22:39 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 0E74C385742D Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:45974) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1o4PbJ-0001Hx-Or; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 12:22:38 -0400 Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=4811 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1o4PbI-0005M9-Ns; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 12:22:37 -0400 Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 19:22:29 +0300 Message-Id: <834k0be4e2.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Andrew Burgess Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: (message from Andrew Burgess via Gdb-patches on Thu, 23 Jun 2022 17:05:13 +0100) Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] gdb/doc: fix column widths in MI compatibility table References: X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, RCVD_IN_BARRACUDACENTRAL, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 16:22:40 -0000 > Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 17:05:13 +0100 > From: Andrew Burgess via Gdb-patches > Cc: Andrew Burgess > > In passing I noticed that the column headings for the table of MI > compatibility and breaking changes, were overlapping, at least when > the PDF is generated on my machine. > > I propose giving slightly more space to the two version number > columns, this prevents the headers overlapping for me. This should fall under the "obvious change" rule. Thanks.