This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Also handle "set input-radix 0" and "set output-radix 0"
- From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- To: Pedro Alves <pedro at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:28:51 -0700
- Subject: Re: Also handle "set input-radix 0" and "set output-radix 0"
- References: <200812292022.56780.pedro@codesourcery.com> <m3ljtoclcr.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <200901070115.52476.pedro@codesourcery.com>
- Reply-to: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com> writes:
Pedro> Yes, but this is independent of the issue I'm focusing on, which
Pedro> is the fact that we do 0->UINT_MAX translation before reaching the
Pedro> set function, which doesn't make any sense in this case, and a few
Pedro> others I've listed.
Yeah. I was fixated on one particular case.
Anyway I just want to let you know that I have no objections at all to
you moving forward with this.
Pedro> The more I think about this, the more I think we should either make
Pedro> the set function be a real setter --- that is, it should be passed
Pedro> in the new value as argument, and it should handle the setting itself;
Pedro> or, split the validation into a new function, and declare that the
Pedro> current "set" callbacks are post-set callbacks (which is what they
Pedro> are currently actually).
Yeah, I agree, this would be an improvement.
Tom