From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B052F385841D for ; Mon, 7 Mar 2022 20:05:10 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org B052F385841D Received: from mail-wr1-f70.google.com (mail-wr1-f70.google.com [209.85.221.70]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-36-OSwCVBV3MROBnsYNH9Mo2g-1; Mon, 07 Mar 2022 15:05:09 -0500 X-MC-Unique: OSwCVBV3MROBnsYNH9Mo2g-1 Received: by mail-wr1-f70.google.com with SMTP id y13-20020adfee0d000000b001f1fa450a3dso872152wrn.11 for ; Mon, 07 Mar 2022 12:05:09 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:mime-version; bh=yYflubKsByFZfz0vxH1/QLLhTBfXt6BRigNw5TPBf4g=; b=40Li0mHGvYczzbUhgygcp6/0NKnyuA5ClszocViCKRZxQYvMBdhq/YQixXuaRTtHsh 1FA5k47wrQG2VYIU7ohMYb2ckm/dDv9PWdW76ZZSJZYCvS2c0kvK0fzl4LlaGxuTvI63 4YbWPg29JzY37PzJMW3FpBDnbw9+RbPfo6NimYEuUJ5rFMepDrh+M7NOewuHxSXtEFmM KxbuLexT2v79KCnZ6zLhaSQm33fEYkOT3MdxJMTf+FjBU4Z82HJqXj1qsw5CMRr8q2AS DLzjzEcYih5hLGtVDGy/QZhviK5Gsuq1SNtgelqHwQVpPjtk/bf1N4EE9B205XH6z9XO cskg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5320Dj7W4bHShr2XwO1vuP3W9wof5y7fX21+J7/XMXcc7zdEyvnj BKxBigrjoPegbPzW83cRO3CuKvw5K/4iP9XRsj97Jhv3osZY2+jOYE5HkmTvmUz/NXIU3O0a04x AdDreH7hTXXHS9gzK2rMZLw== X-Received: by 2002:a7b:c08b:0:b0:385:8748:5665 with SMTP id r11-20020a7bc08b000000b0038587485665mr484123wmh.173.1646683507789; Mon, 07 Mar 2022 12:05:07 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzzUxfKNqEBldBJe55BbvADuEg8QDrYLGR3w+yitSq8i/MQsh0X7ZCZdr9cTMpNruOvxUXEkA== X-Received: by 2002:a7b:c08b:0:b0:385:8748:5665 with SMTP id r11-20020a7bc08b000000b0038587485665mr484117wmh.173.1646683507621; Mon, 07 Mar 2022 12:05:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (host86-134-151-205.range86-134.btcentralplus.com. [86.134.151.205]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l1-20020a05600c4f0100b00387369f380bsm283063wmq.41.2022.03.07.12.05.06 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 07 Mar 2022 12:05:07 -0800 (PST) From: Andrew Burgess To: Tom Tromey , Andrew Burgess via Gdb-patches Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 12/15] gdb/tui: support placing the cmd window into a horizontal layout In-Reply-To: <87mti5sklz.fsf@tromey.com> References: <87mti5sklz.fsf@tromey.com> Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2022 20:05:06 +0000 Message-ID: <87lexlwmtp.fsf@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NONE, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) 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: Mon, 07 Mar 2022 20:05:12 -0000 Tom Tromey writes: >>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Burgess via Gdb-patches writes: > > Andrew> This commit allows the user to place the cmd window within horizontal > Andrew> tui layouts. > > Do these really work? I forget exactly why, but I vaguely recall that > there is some reason the command window doesn't interact nicely with > arbitrary layouts. > > It might be because the command window is unboxed, so the rendering > looks strange. Or maybe it affects the pager somehow? I've not noticed anything particularly strange so far. At least, nothing so strange that I think we should not go ahead with this change. I have seen a couple of weird page issues when I created a particularly narrow CMD window - it almost seemed like the page was confused about how many lines it had drawn. But for the most part everything seemed OK. My preference would be to get this in (after I've addressed the other feedback), then if we see problems we can start to address issues. I don't think that the user experience is so bad that we should go ahead with this. Let me know if you're happy with this approach. Thanks, Andrew