Also handle "set input-radix 0" and "set output-radix 0"
Tom Tromey
tromey@redhat.com
Fri Jan 16 23:31:00 GMT 2009
>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com> writes:
Pedro> Yes, but this is independent of the issue I'm focusing on, which
Pedro> is the fact that we do 0->UINT_MAX translation before reaching the
Pedro> set function, which doesn't make any sense in this case, and a few
Pedro> others I've listed.
Yeah. I was fixated on one particular case.
Anyway I just want to let you know that I have no objections at all to
you moving forward with this.
Pedro> The more I think about this, the more I think we should either make
Pedro> the set function be a real setter --- that is, it should be passed
Pedro> in the new value as argument, and it should handle the setting itself;
Pedro> or, split the validation into a new function, and declare that the
Pedro> current "set" callbacks are post-set callbacks (which is what they
Pedro> are currently actually).
Yeah, I agree, this would be an improvement.
Tom
More information about the Gdb-patches
mailing list