This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Still some style problems with 8.3 branch
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Tom Tromey <tom at tromey dot com>
- Cc: philippe dot waroquiers at skynet dot be, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2019 21:21:27 +0300
- Subject: Re: Still some style problems with 8.3 branch
- References: <1553942211.1854.2.camel@skynet.be> <835zrzi0d7.fsf@gnu.org>
Ping!
> Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2019 17:28:52 +0300
> From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
> CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
>
> > From: Philippe Waroquiers <philippe.waroquiers@skynet.be>
> > Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2019 11:36:51 +0100
> >
> > I just encountered a styling problem with the 8.3 branch
> > (also on the 8.4).
> > Test executed with GNU gdb (GDB) 8.2.91.20190330-git
> >
> > To reproduce:
> > ./gdb/gdb ./gdb/gdb
> > info sources
> > and then type return successively, to see each page.
> > After the initial page, the first line contains a file that
> > is partially printed in green color, partially printed in black color,
> > e.g., in the below given output.
> > The line that starts with '--Type <RET>' is in black, as expected.
> > Then the next line starts in green as expected.
> > But only '/bd/home/ph' is in green.
> > We then have 'ilippe/gdb/git/relbranch/gdb/minsyms.h,' in black.
> > Then all is normal till the next page.
> >
> > So, that seems to point at some remaining problem in the
> > buffering/output of style/color codes.
>
> I don't think it's due to buffering. If I #ifdef away this part near
> the end of prompt_for_continue:
>
> /* Restore the current styling. */
> if (can_emit_style_escape (gdb_stdout))
> emit_style_escape (applied_style);
>
> then the problem seems to go away. So I think this style setting is
> what causes the problem, probably because applied_style has the wrong
> value here? The incorrect style seems to start precisely from the
> first character that exceeds the last column of a line, so I think
> it's indeed due to the above snippet.
>
> Tom, can you look into this, please?
>