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: Nick Roberts <nickrob at snap dot net dot nz>
- Cc: Bob Rossi <bob at brasko dot net>, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:06:05 -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> <17074.46909.592235.541072@farnswood.snap.net.nz>
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 11:42:52PM +1200, Nick Roberts wrote:
> > You've replaced "--all-values" in the source with "--with-values" here.
> > Surely that's a bug?
You don't really seem to answer this. -stack-list-locals today accepts
--all-values and does not accept --with-values. It has for a year and
a half, so it was in a released version of GDB. Why're you removing
that?
> > > ! if (argc == 1)
> > > ! name = argv[0];
> > > ! else
> > > ! name = (argv[1]);
> >
> > Stray parentheses.
>
> I don't follow.
name = argv[1];
not:
name = (argv[1]);
> > IIRC, you added the "0"/"1" compatibility to -var-list-children to make
> > life easier for Apple. Is that right? If so, do they need it here
> > also, or can we get away with just --all-values? I've no real
> > objection to the 0/1, but they're a bit ugly.
>
> I think I originally copied the "0"/"1" arguments for -var-list-children
> from existing behaviour for -stack-list-locals. I also think that Apple
> had already done something similar but different (looking through the e-mails
> their arguments had reverse the order: SHOW-VALUE VAROBJ-HANDLE). If these
> are removed then I need to keep "-all-values" for -var-list-children for
> backward compatiblity (GDB 6.1 to 6.3?).
I don't see why the presence of the 0/1 make any difference to the
--with-values/--all-values question. But if no one is already using
the 0/1 syntax, let's not introduce new uses of it; the existing uses
can stay, but we don't need more.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC