This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA_v3 0/8] Implement 'frame apply COMMAND', enhance 'thread apply COMMAND'
- From: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- To: Philippe Waroquiers <philippe dot waroquiers at skynet dot be>, Andrew Burgess <andrew dot burgess at embecosm dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 20:01:43 +0100
- Subject: Re: [RFA_v3 0/8] Implement 'frame apply COMMAND', enhance 'thread apply COMMAND'
- References: <20180624183708.888-1-philippe.waroquiers@skynet.be> <20180629122158.GH15881@embecosm.com> <1530303340.1512.15.camel@skynet.be> <1530304703.1512.17.camel@skynet.be>
On 06/29/2018 09:38 PM, Philippe Waroquiers wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-06-29 at 22:15 +0200, Philippe Waroquiers wrote:
>> Whatever we take, we have to ensure that gdb.texinfo systematically use
>> it to identify a frame as shown by backtrace (#integer).
> Note that in the online help, we have already some usages of level
> speaking about frames.
>
> So, all that taken into account, my preference would be to remove
> the frame number wording,
> and use frame level everywhere in the doc and online help :
> LEVEL seems more clear/intuitive than NUMBER or ID
>
> But whatever choice is ok for me.
Ahah, I did warn about having to decide this at
<https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2018-06/msg00410.html>.
Thanks Andrew for bringing this up.
I agree, "level" seems like the best option to me. I should have
suggested that one more strongly instead of "id" when I wrote
the above, but I was distracted thinking that we'd end up
with "count" instead. :-)
Thanks,
Pedro Alves