Re: [PATCH: gdb/mi + doco] -var-update

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>]

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