This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org 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: [patch][python] 2 of 5 - Frame filter MI code changes.


On 13/03/13 20:27, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>> "Phil" == Phil Muldoon <pmuldoon@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> Phil> I do apologies, I forgot to add the mi-getopt.c patch in with the
> Phil> patch-set.  Here it is.
> 
> No problem.
> 
> It seems to me that just adding a "-" to the option string in the
> callers is simpler, and probably better -- this patch makes "-" and "--"
> options synonymous in all cases, but I'm not sure we want that.

Currently (before my patch) the commands self parse their own --
values.  One of the things from the last review was you wanted where
possible to use mi-getopt to parse options.

It would seem weird to me to mix - and -- in these commands.

You would have:

-no-frame-filters --all-values

Where -no-frame-filters is parsed by mi_getopt with the single "-" and
"--all-values" is parsed by the command.  So I patched mi_getopt to
parse "--" values for consistency. (Remember we can't use mi_getopt to
parse --all-values, et al as they can be replaced with integer
equivalents, ie 0, 1, 3 depending on whether it is --no-values,
--all-values or --simple-values).  Normally I would change this to be
saner, but then we might break MI clients that reply on this integer
substitution.


Cheers

Phil


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