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: Nick Roberts <nickrob at snap dot net dot nz>
- To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- Cc: Bob Rossi <bob at brasko dot net>, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 11:13:04 +1200
- 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><20050617140605.GD23901@nevyn.them.org>
Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
> 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?
Eli asked me to use --with-values for -var-update. Since, after the change,
-stack-list-locals would have the same options, I thought they should have
the same names. FWIW my preference is the same as yours: to use --all-values
throughout.
> name = argv[1];
>
> not:
>
> name = (argv[1]);
OK
> > > 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.
-var-list-children --all-values VARNUM works with 6.3.
-var-list-children --with-values VARNUM would work with 6.4 if these
changes are installed.
-var-list-children 1 VARNUM would work with 6.3 and 6.4 if
these changes are installed.
Nick