This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] Teach -data-list-register-values to not include unavailable registers
- From: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- Cc: Yao Qi <yao at codesourcery dot com>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 20:58:29 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Teach -data-list-register-values to not include unavailable registers
- References: <1370609650-23595-1-git-send-email-yao at codesourcery dot com> <83sj0ut2ob dot fsf at gnu dot org>
Replying for Yao as I wrote this.
On 06/07/2013 03:29 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> From: Yao Qi <yao@codesourcery.com>
>> Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 20:54:10 +0800
>>
>> This patch adds an option --skip-unavailable to MI command
>> -data-list-register-values, so that unavailable registers are not
>> displayed (on the context of traceframes).
>
> "Skip unavailable" is double negation. How about -show-available
> instead?
I think I picked that because "unavailable" terminology is that is
what we've been using throughout GDB's output for such values.
We display then as literal "<unavailable>" (though also
"value not available"). For -show-available, it's
not as clear to me that "available" isn't just the generic english
word -- I'd have to ponder, 'does this include <error ...>,
'<optimized out>' values, etc. (the answer is yes, it does)? (*)
I'm obsessed about it, and this is machine interface anyhow, so
no user sees it.
(*) we seem to be lacking documentation of what all these
"<optimized out>", "<unavailable>" etc., values are.
>> Display the registers' contents. @var{fmt} is the format according to
>> which the registers' contents are to be returned, followed by an optional
>> list of numbers specifying the registers to display. A missing list of
>> -numbers indicates that the contents of all the registers must be returned.
>> +numbers indicates that the contents of all the registers must be
>> +returned. In the context of trace frames, the
>> +@code{--skip-unavailable} option indicates that only available
>> +(collected) registers are returned.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> "are to be returned". And why do you need the first part of that
> sentence, about the "context of trace frames"? Does it add anything
> to the description?
Not really. Meanwhile, we've added uses of <unavailable> outside trace
frames, so this it's really better to remove mention of trace frames.
--
Pedro Alves