From: Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Message-Id: <200012271636.RAA00830@father.ludd.luth.se>
Subject: Re: diff -u
In-Reply-To: <NEBBIOJNGMKPNOBKHCGHGEBICAAA.tim.van.holder@pandora.be> from Tim Van Holder at "Dec 27, 2000 05:25:32 pm"
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 17:36:39 +0100 (MET)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL54 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

According to Tim Van Holder:
> > Is it possible to change the recommendation when generating patches to
> > "use -u"? The -c diffs is very hard for me (humans?) to decypher.
> This seems to be purely a personal preference. I for one find context diffs
> easier to read than unified ones. But then again, I'm not human :-P
> Generally speaking, I'm happy as long as it isn't the useless standard
> format.

What's the context in context diffs that aren't in unified diffs? fdgkjdgklfjgfsklg fg ffjg fjgfklgjfg fgkfdj  fdgfdsgfdsgfdsgfdsgfdsgfdsgfdsgfdsgfdsgfdsgfdsgfdsgfdsgfdsgfdsgfdsgfdsgfdsgfdggsgfd I'm trying a buffer overflow on Tim sdfklfdfdgjhsfdkjgfdssgfd gsgfdsgfdsgfdklsgfdsgfd g 0x25342653abcd3543ddfe2435454fdfbbe343434334fbdb34j43545545543545543u  yhrehgfdh  d


Right,

						MartinS