This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH: gdb/mi + doco] -var-update
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- Cc: Nick Roberts <nickrob at snap dot net dot nz>, Bob Rossi <bob at brasko dot net>,gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:04:10 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH: gdb/mi + doco] -var-update
- References: <16922.43915.346792.973282@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <01c51898$Blat.v2.4$f6fd05c0@zahav.net.il> <16929.8147.933720.246602@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <16955.41017.161288.832646@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050401024942.GA2179@white> <17013.35649.62745.226730@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050502040526.GA10023@nevyn.them.org> <17013.54662.20554.239976@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050617034329.GH17013@nevyn.them.org> <uoea51bqt.fsf@gnu.org>
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 01:08:58PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 23:43:29 -0400
> > From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> > Cc: Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
> >
> > I don't remember the entire outcome of your discussion with Eli
>
> My opinion (which Nick eventually accepted, IIRC) is here:
>
> http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2005-02/msg00204.html
>
> > but I find the idea of having --with-values sometimes and
> > --all-values other times a bit confusing. I went trying to figure
> > out which meant what and that's when I noticed this problem.
>
> If you have suggestions for better names for these options, please say
> what they are. Alternatively, if you are saying that the manual patch
> doesn't explain them well enough, please point out the unclear text.
The latest manual patch Nick posted was so mangled that I couldn't work
out what the new text was.
Before the patch -stack-list-locals takes --no-values, --all-values, and
--simple-values. -var-list-children takes --no-values and
--all-values.
After the patch -stack-list-locals takes --no-values, --all-values, and
--simple-values. -var-list-children takes --no-values and
--with-values. -var-update takes --no-values and --with-values.
So, we still have --all-values, we've introduced --with-values, and
we've made an incompatible change. I think that, other than the
incompatible change, I don't have a big problem with this - they are
different commands, they can take different options. But consistency
would be nice.
I do see that you OK'd the incompatible change:
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2005-02/msg00232.html
I'm less comfortable with that than you and Nick are; we shipped GDB
6.3 with -var-list-children --all-values, and it's even in the manual.
Your original objection was:
> Also, I find the choice of "--all-values" unfortunate. The opposite
> of "--no-values" is something like "--with-values" or
> "--print-values", not "--all-values".
Could you elaborate? I think that --all-values is a reasonable option;
especially since --simple-values would be a reasonable extension here
also. It causes the values for objects other than
structs/arrays/unions to be printed.
Would you be happier with -var-update --all-values if -var-update
--simple-values also worked?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC