From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10526 invoked by alias); 17 Jun 2005 07:37:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 10466 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Jun 2005 07:37:13 -0000 Received: from viper.snap.net.nz (HELO viper.snap.net.nz) (202.37.101.8) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 07:37:13 +0000 Received: from farnswood.snap.net.nz (p122-tnt1.snap.net.nz [202.124.110.122]) by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3682153B41A; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 19:37:10 +1200 (NZST) Received: by farnswood.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 501) id 6B1A162A99; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 08:39:01 +0100 (BST) From: Nick Roberts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17074.32276.804157.95131@farnswood.snap.net.nz> Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 07:37:00 -0000 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] -stack-select-frame In-Reply-To: <20050617032149.GF17013@nevyn.them.org> References: <17072.62436.183299.55978@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050616044209.GA5907@nevyn.them.org> <17073.5179.249482.402135@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050616132120.GA5277@nevyn.them.org> <17074.566.194312.713028@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050616234728.GA14260@nevyn.them.org> <17074.16093.924351.774111@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050617032149.GF17013@nevyn.them.org> X-SW-Source: 2005-06/txt/msg00247.txt.bz2 > > -stack-info-frame hasn't been implemented yet (I've think we've been here > > before) but it would probably be quite easy to implement and I guess it > > could work like I've made -stack-select-frame without an argument work. > > *snicker* that's what I get for reading the manual. I assumed it was > implemented. > > Maybe it is time to mark the unimplemented commands in the manual? It _is_ documented as unimplemented in my copy. ... > If you're OK with only a literal "-stack-select-frame" providing the > frame information, how about implementing -stack-info-frame instead? > The documentation for -stack-select-frame does not suggest the argument > is optional; we could make it mandatory. It just seems cleaner to me > to have select be write-only and info be read-only. The CLI command is both write-only and read-only. Clearly there's no need to copy what might be existing bad practice and the command name -stack-select-frame to provide frame information is unintuitive. I'll submit a patch to make -stack-info-frame do this. Nick