Re: [PATCH] -stack-info-frames

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>]

On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 10:24:19AM +1200, Nick Roberts wrote:
> I wasn't trying to make up the rules, just interpret them.  I posted a very
> similar patch earlier which was reviewed.  As no branch/release is imminent,
> it seemed a safe thing to do.  I know not to apply judgement again.  Sorry.

OK, thanks.

>  > If you have trouble juggling patches, have a complete checkout for each
>  > independent project you are working on.  That's not hard to do.
> 
> I'll have to work out a new routine.  Contributing to Emacs works differently.

It's a serious suggestion - I often have a tree for everything I'm
working on, and that lets me make sure that I keep things independent.

>  > > This commit is slightly different in two respects:
>  > > 
>  > > 1) mi_cmd_stack_info_frame uses print_frame_info instead of
>  > >    print_stack_frame.  This follows mi_cmd_stack_list_frames and means
>  > >    that the argument values aren't printed.
>  > > 
>  > > 2) The documentation for -stack-info-frame previously said (before I
>  > >    removed it) "Get info on the current frame.".  I've corrected this to
>  > >    "Get info on the selected frame."  I've also removed the argument
>  > >    values from the example as explained in 1).
>  > 
>  > Despite the fact that you made it up as you went along.  Why did you
>  > decide that this change was a better idea?
> 
> Which change?

#1.  Why not print the arguments?  I guess your logic is that if you
want them, you can find them by a round trip through
-stack-list-frames, is that it?

> The patch was OK but the diff wasn't.  I picked up the backup copy by mistake:

Great!  Thank you.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC