[PATCH v3 8/9] compile: New compile printf

[Jan Kratochvil]

On Wed, 06 May 2015 12:22:41 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote:
> I understand that.  But what I was asking is (after the series is wholly
> pushed), what is the advantage of "(gdb) compile printf"
> over "(gdb) compile print printf (...)" and "(gdb) call printf (...)".

This patch, that is
	[PATCH v3 8/9] compile: New compile printf
without the part
	[PATCH v3 9/9] compile: compile printf: gdbserver support
is really just that
	(gdb) compile print printf (...)
and the patch is also therefore very simple.

According to Phil - roughly, not citing - such 'compile printf' was simple
enough to code to make it worth such a feature, despite it has many
shortcomings.


> Agreed on the latter, but the question really is: why do we need
> "set compile-printf-args" instead of using "set compile-args" for
> all expression evaluation through the compiler?
> Shouldn't "-Werror=format" be in "set compile-args" too?

Why not, this is a matter of opinion.  IMO cc itself should have -Werror by
default as otherwise by default it is willing to knowingly produce crashing
programs.  The only safe warnings are -Wunused* ones and maybe few others.
So again, this patch tries to make minimal changes to what is the current
established wrong standard.


Jan