This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFC: "set" command with 2 arguments instead of one?
- From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- To: Doug Evans <xdje42 at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Andreas Schwab <schwab at linux-m68k dot org>, "gdb-patches at sourceware dot org" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 11:12:58 +0400
- Subject: Re: RFC: "set" command with 2 arguments instead of one?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20141123042417 dot GA839 at adacore dot com> <87bnny45zi dot fsf at igel dot home> <20141123095317 dot GE5774 at adacore dot com> <CAP9bCMStR=uJ387HDhKdN8CHShFOiquYFHXhOvcVX0i0_Hr7VA at mail dot gmail dot com>
> This feels like a case where we need to at least think about some
> future-proofing.
> One way some commands separate expressions is with commas.
> I'm not fond of optional commas (setting aside the thread on
> info macro -at LOCATION,).
> IOW, if it turns out that we want to use commas down the road
> to separate expressions here, then I'd prefer the commas
> be required today.
> E.g., set mpx bound ADDR, LBOUND, UBOUND
> As for how to process multiple arguments to a "set" command,
> one way would be to stage the value in a string parameter,
> and then have a set handler post-process the result.
I think using commas systematically is making it worse for ourselves,
since it prevents us from using gdb_buildargv to parse the command
arguments for us. Commas also have a meaning in C, so arguably
they could be used in expressions as well. But, if that's the way
people prefer, then having a standard gdb_buildargv-like API that
everyone consistently uses will make it easier for me to accept
that decision.
--
Joel