This is the mail archive of the 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: printing wchar_t*

> From: Vladimir Prus <>
> Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 16:16:26 +0400
> Cc:,
> Eli, I think we're running in circles.

Fine, then I'll just stop responding.  This is my last (and hopefully
short) contribution to this thread.

>   1. For any wchar_t* value, be it value of a variable, or function
>      parameter three levels up the stack, or member of structure, I want
>      gdb to print that value in specific format that's easy for frontend
>      to use. String with escapes is fine.

A noble goal.  If you (or someone else) submits patches, I'll be happy
to review them.

>   2. I want that formatting to take effect both for MI commands and for
>      'print' command, since the user can issue 'print' command manually.

I think CLI and MI are two different cases, and thus simple solutions
that are appropriate for MI (because it doesn't display) will not be
good enough for CLI.

>   3. I don't mind having this behaviour only when --interpreter=mi is
>      specified.

I don't think `print' should behave differently depending on the
interpreter, but whatever.

> First you say it's not possible to detect encoding from environment. Then you 
> say you can't trust user/frontend. Together, that sounds like the problem of 
> making gdb print char* literals reliably is impossible. Is that what you're 
> trying to say? 

I'm trying to say that it would be absurd to add all that complexity
to GDB.

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