[PATCH: gdb/mi + doco] -var-update
Daniel Jacobowitz
drow@false.org
Fri Jun 17 14:06:00 GMT 2005
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 11:42:52PM +1200, Nick Roberts wrote:
> > You've replaced "--all-values" in the source with "--with-values" here.
> > Surely that's a bug?
You don't really seem to answer this. -stack-list-locals today accepts
--all-values and does not accept --with-values. It has for a year and
a half, so it was in a released version of GDB. Why're you removing
that?
> > > ! if (argc == 1)
> > > ! name = argv[0];
> > > ! else
> > > ! name = (argv[1]);
> >
> > Stray parentheses.
>
> I don't follow.
name = argv[1];
not:
name = (argv[1]);
> > IIRC, you added the "0"/"1" compatibility to -var-list-children to make
> > life easier for Apple. Is that right? If so, do they need it here
> > also, or can we get away with just --all-values? I've no real
> > objection to the 0/1, but they're a bit ugly.
>
> I think I originally copied the "0"/"1" arguments for -var-list-children
> from existing behaviour for -stack-list-locals. I also think that Apple
> had already done something similar but different (looking through the e-mails
> their arguments had reverse the order: SHOW-VALUE VAROBJ-HANDLE). If these
> are removed then I need to keep "-all-values" for -var-list-children for
> backward compatiblity (GDB 6.1 to 6.3?).
I don't see why the presence of the 0/1 make any difference to the
--with-values/--all-values question. But if no one is already using
the 0/1 syntax, let's not introduce new uses of it; the existing uses
can stay, but we don't need more.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC
More information about the Gdb-patches
mailing list