[PATCH: gdb/mi + doco] -var-update
Daniel Jacobowitz
drow@false.org
Mon Jul 4 03:51:00 GMT 2005
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
More information about the Gdb-patches
mailing list