From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5288 invoked by alias); 19 Jun 2005 22:31:51 -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 5240 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Jun 2005 22:31:38 -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; Sun, 19 Jun 2005 22:31:38 +0000 Received: from farnswood.snap.net.nz (p202-tnt1.snap.net.nz [202.124.110.202]) by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2349E545EC5; Mon, 20 Jun 2005 10:31:34 +1200 (NZST) Received: by farnswood.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 501) id E18F762A99; Sun, 19 Jun 2005 23:24:20 +0100 (BST) From: Nick Roberts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17077.61587.164352.664225@farnswood.snap.net.nz> Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 22:31:00 -0000 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] -stack-info-frames In-Reply-To: <20050619145612.GA8219@nevyn.them.org> References: <20050617230130.GB21178@nevyn.them.org> <20050617231425.GA22254@nevyn.them.org> <17075.30993.384316.356236@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050618015756.GA30430@nevyn.them.org> <17075.57612.684597.392526@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050618155742.GB3663@nevyn.them.org> <17076.42233.730605.834264@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050618232032.GA28368@nevyn.them.org> <17076.59646.873454.551250@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050619145612.GA8219@nevyn.them.org> X-SW-Source: 2005-06/txt/msg00301.txt.bz2 > > OK. I've committed the -stack-info-frame part of the change that posted > > (Sat, 18 Jun 2005 10:52:09 +1200). Perhaps that doesn't follow the > > letter of the law but I hope it follows the spirit. In any case, I find > > it easier to make further changes to the repository than juggle patches > > (as demonstrated shown with my earlier mangling). > > No, Nick. You don't get to make up rules as you go along, no matter > how much the current ones irk you. That patch was never reviewed and > never approved. Don't do that again; if you won't wait for approval, > we'll remove you from write-after-approval. I wasn't trying to make up the rules, just interpret them. I posted a very similar patch earlier which was reviewed. As no branch/release is imminent, it seemed a safe thing to do. I know not to apply judgement again. Sorry. > If you have trouble juggling patches, have a complete checkout for each > independent project you are working on. That's not hard to do. I'll have to work out a new routine. Contributing to Emacs works differently. > +enum mi_cmd_result > +mi_cmd_stack_info_frame (char *command, char **argv, int argc) > +{ > + if (argc > 0) > + error (_("mi_cmd_stack_info_frame: No arguments required")); > + > + print_frame_info (get_selected_frame (NULL), 1, LOC_AND_ADDRESS, 0); > + return MI_CMD_DONE; > +} > > "No arguments required" doesn't make much sense as an error message; it > suggests that no arguments are necessary, but not that any arguments > are invalid. But I see there are two uses of it already, and none of > any other format for functions which take no arguements. So the code > parts of the patch are belatedly OK... Where possible, I just copy what is already there. > > This commit is slightly different in two respects: > > > > 1) mi_cmd_stack_info_frame uses print_frame_info instead of > > print_stack_frame. This follows mi_cmd_stack_list_frames and means > > that the argument values aren't printed. > > > > 2) The documentation for -stack-info-frame previously said (before I > > removed it) "Get info on the current frame.". I've corrected this to > > "Get info on the selected frame." I've also removed the argument > > values from the example as explained in 1). > > Despite the fact that you made it up as you went along. Why did you > decide that this change was a better idea? Which change? > The documentation is up to Eli, but I can say with some confidence that > it is NOT ok, since you didn't really remove argument values from the > examples. I still see one: > > > + @smallexample > > + (@value{GDBP}) > > + -stack-info-frame > > + ^done,frame=@{level="1",addr="0x0001076c",func="callee3", > > + args=[@{name="strarg",value="0x11940 \"A string argument.\""@}], > > + file="../../../devo/gdb/testsuite/gdb.mi/basics.c", > > + fullname="/home/foo/bar/devo/gdb/testsuite/gdb.mi/basics.c",line="17"@} > > + (@value{GDBP}) > > + @end smallexample > > + The patch was OK but the diff wasn't. I picked up the backup copy by mistake: *** /home/nick/src/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo.~1.269~ 2005-06-19... --- /home/nick/src/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo~ 2005-06-19... *************** ^^^ Nick