This is the mail archive of the 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: printing wchar_t*

On 4/14/06, Eli Zaretskii <> wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 10:18:10 -0700
> > From: "Jim Blandy" <>
> >
> > I much prefer LVAL@@ to LVAL@0.
> Agreed.
> > I don't think it's worth complicating the syntax for searching for a
> > zero terminator in order to allow one to search for an arbitrary
> > terminator.
> Then how will you find the zero terminator?  With wcslen?  That is
> only good for wchar_t strings, not for arbitrary integer arrays.  And
> I thought Daniel was suggesting something more general than just
> wchar_t arrays.

He is.  I am, too.  Just search for elements equal to zero.  If LVAL's
type can't be compared with zero, then you can't use @@ on it.

> > I think that will require more typing in the much more common case
> ??? What typing?  I suggested an additional command that will set the
> terminator; after that, it's the same typing as with zero.

Yes.  I said, "I don't think it's worth complicating the syntax for
searching for a zero terminator...".  Providing an additional command
to set the terminator doesn't complicate the syntax.  You're assuming
I was speaking directly to your suggestion, when I was instead simply
stating the requirements I think we should meet.

That said, I don't even think we should have a separate command for
setting the terminating value for @@.  I think we should wait until
someone has a need for it arising out of a real-life use case, not a
design conversation.

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