PR11067 patch
Chris Moller
cmoller@redhat.com
Wed Feb 10 03:03:00 GMT 2010
On 02/09/10 18:48, Tom Tromey wrote:
>
> My reason for not wanting this, aside from lack of any precedent, is
> based on my belief that the differences are aesthetic and not
> functional. That leads me to conclude that in this case the cost
But what's the cost? Functionally, it consists mostly of replacing an
fputs_filtered with a vfprintf_filtered, so the performance hit is
negligible, and the patch adds maybe a hundred lines of code, most of it
in setting up the set enum-fmt command and translating the format strings.
> of another gdb option is outweighed by the triviality of the issue.
>
Yep, so this is my last comment on the matter.
More information about the Gdb-patches
mailing list