This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: MI: -var-list-children --simple-values
- From: Vladimir Prus <vladimir at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- Cc: Nick Roberts <nickrob at snap dot net dot nz>, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 17:55:02 +0300
- Subject: Re: MI: -var-list-children --simple-values
- References: <200611151250.11654.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <200611151450.19852.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <20061115144343.GA25165@nevyn.them.org>
On Wednesday 15 November 2006 17:43, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 02:50:19PM +0300, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> > On Wednesday 15 November 2006 14:17, Nick Roberts wrote:
> > > ISTR Daniel J wanted --simple-values for consistency with
> > > -stack-list-locals. As it's easy to fix, I suggest doing that.
> >
> > There are many things that are easy to fix, but it does not mean we need
> > to keep unused functionality.
> >
> > Perhaps Dan can comment why he really needed --simple-values.
>
> I felt that it was useful; I still do.
Why? Especially, why it's better than --all-values. Note that --simple-values
only don't print values of arrays, structures and unions, and if you check
c_value_of_variable, you'll see that for structures just a literal string is
returned, while for array very trivial formatting operation is used.
In other words, --all-values do not involve any complex processing, reading
data from the target, or anything. What are we trying to save by
adding --simple-values?
> Takeup of new MI features by
> IDEs seems to be a very slow process, since many support the system's
> installed GDB (which may be several revisions behind); reports of MI
> features that don't work also seems to be a bit spotty. So, honestly,
> I wouldn't read too much into it that no one noticed. It was new in
> GDB 6.4.
>
> > > I also note
> > > a mistake in the error message. Both are fixed below.
> >
> > I don't see any regression test for this crash. Are you going to
> > provide one?
>
> I'd appreciate it if one of you could do that, yes. Shame on me, I
> didn't write one at the time.
Heh ;-)
- Volodya