This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH: gdb/mi + doco] -var-update
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- To: Nick Roberts <nickrob at snap dot net dot nz>
- Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>, Bob Rossi <bob at brasko dot net>,gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 23:50:59 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH: gdb/mi + doco] -var-update
- References: <20050401024942.GA2179@white> <17013.35649.62745.226730@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050502040526.GA10023@nevyn.them.org> <17013.54662.20554.239976@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050617034329.GH17013@nevyn.them.org> <uoea51bqt.fsf@gnu.org> <20050617140410.GA24575@nevyn.them.org> <ud5qk0z51.fsf@gnu.org> <20050703195630.GM13811@nevyn.them.org> <17096.43077.948790.211753@farnswood.snap.net.nz>
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 03:08:53PM +1200, Nick Roberts wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
> ...
> > Nick, here's a patch based on yours which adds -var-list-children
> > --simple-values and -var-update --simple-values/--all-values. I like
> > it; I think --simple-values is useful (since for anything other than
> > simple values, an IDE is likely to want to print each member
> > individually...).
> >
> > I didn't revise the documentation because your last posted patch didn't
> > include the current manual diff. I also didn't write any testcases.
> > Both of these need to be done before the patch goes in. Tested on
> > i686-pc-linux-gnu, both the testsuite and by hand for -var-update.
> >
> > No incompatible changes, option consistency, and behavior consistency.
> > I don't think I can do any better than this :-) Nick, Eli, are you
> > both OK with this version of the code changes?
>
> Yes, this looks good. I have tested it with my current version of gdb-mi.el
> and it seems to work. I will try to dig out the relevant patch for the
> documentation and rework it, if Eli is also agreeable to this revision.
Thanks! Once we've reached consensus on this, will your current gdb-mi.el
be compatible with FSF GDB again?
> ...
> > - if (argc != 1 && argc != 2)
> > + if (argc > 2)
>
> This gives:
>
> (gdb)
> -var-list-children
> &"Variable object not found\n"
> ^error,msg="Variable object not found"
> (gdb)
>
> instead of:
>
> (gdb)
> -var-list-children
> &"mi_cmd_var_list_children: Usage: NAME.\n"
> ^error,msg="mi_cmd_var_list_children: Usage: NAME."
> (gdb)
>
> I don't know if that's what you intended.
Blech. That's what I get for trying to be clever. No, the old version
was right. I'll correct.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC