This is the mail archive of the gdb@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: MI: performance of getting stack arguments

From: Nick Roberts <nickrob at snap dot net dot nz>
To: Jim Ingham <jingham at apple dot com>
Cc: Robert Dewar <dewar at adacore dot com>, Vladimir Prus <ghost at cs dot msu dot su>, gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 09:37:13 +1200
Subject: Re: MI: performance of getting stack arguments
References: <e2331r$cbr$1@sea.gmane.org> <1CE7391B-7261-49BD-9068-89C201F555DE@apple.com> <444539D9.80805@adacore.com> <EFF204DE-4C25-4F2A-A622-8605B2996BC9@apple.com>

 > > The ordinary bt from gdb gives this info, and it would be a pain
 > > not to have it!
 > >
 > 
 > I dunno.  I find that having a really simple clean stack listing with  
 > just function names makes it much easier to tell where I am in the  
 > program.

I agree.  The requirements are different: with CLI the user will generally type
bt at a specific point in the session, while with MI the command
"-stack-list-frames" gets sent every time the UI needs to update.


-- 
Nick                                           http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob

Follow-Ups:
- Re: MI: performance of getting stack arguments
  - From: Eli Zaretskii

References:
- MI: performance of getting stack arguments
  - From: Vladimir Prus
- Re: MI: performance of getting stack arguments
  - From: Jim Ingham
- Re: MI: performance of getting stack arguments
  - From: Robert Dewar
- Re: MI: performance of getting stack arguments
  - From: Jim Ingham

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]