From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10505 invoked by alias); 15 Jan 2005 01:37:57 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 10439 invoked from network); 15 Jan 2005 01:37:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakermmtao04.cox.net) (68.230.240.35) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 15 Jan 2005 01:37:48 -0000 Received: from white ([68.9.64.121]) by lakermmtao04.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-117-20041022) with ESMTP id <20050115013748.NIJH22354.lakermmtao04.cox.net@white>; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 20:37:48 -0500 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1Cpcsu-00036l-00; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 20:37:48 -0500 Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 01:37:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: MI output change Message-ID: <20050115013748.GA11927@white> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <41E8316F.7050806@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <41E8316F.7050806@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2005-01/txt/msg00076.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 03:54:07PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > Hello, > > The MI output is currently littered with: > > (gdb) > PASS: gdb.mi/mi-var-cmd.exp: create lsimple->integer > -var-create int * int > &"Attempt to use a type name as an expression.\n" > &"mi_cmd_var_create: unable to create variable object\n" > ^error,msg="mi_cmd_var_create: unable to create variable object" > (gdb) > > (note how the error appears as both the result and as standard out) > > My recent exception handling rewrite means that this can finally be > fixed. However that means that the MI output has technically changed - > no one should be relying on the message appearing on stdout but hey ... > > Is this going to be an issue? Seems like a nice improvement. The message in "msg" does not have a newline, while the one after '&' does. Does this matter at all? Bob Rossi