Re: MI: -var-list-children --simple-values

[Nick Roberts <nickrob@snap.net.nz>]

 > > I didn't invent --simple-values though, I just added it to -var-update.
 > > Nick added it to -stack-list-locals on 20-Jan-2004.  Ah here:
 > >   http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2003-11/msg00055.html

Actually I think you added it to -var-update (where I think it makes
no difference as all values here are simple) and -var-list-children.  I think
this all started because when I suggested "--all-values" for -var-update
and -var-list-children Eli found the names unfortunate and suggested others.
I think the final solution was an effort to keep everyone happy.

 > This is in fact completely different change. Here's 
 > what "-stack-list-locals --all-values" produces:
 > 
 >       ^done,locals=[{name="the_struct",value="{a_fr = 120, b = 333, inner_fr =
 >            {i = 0, j = 5, k = 5}, c = 3, pad = {0 <repeats 100 times>}, d =
 >             10, pad2 = {0 <repeats 100 times>}, e = 10}"}]
 > 
 > So, the difference between --all-values and --simple-values is dramatic. In 
 > case of --var-list-children you don't get full structure printed. You won't 
 > even have the structure *read* (with my laziness patch, that is).

Yes, I describe the purpose in the manual:

  ...; and if it is 2 or `--simple-values', print the name, type and value for
  simple data types and the name and type for arrays, structures and
  unions.  In this last case, a frontend can immediately display the
  value of simple data types and create variable objects for other data
  types when the the user wishes to explore their values in more detail.

ISTR this is what Totalview does (not that it matters but it might help some
understand its purpose).

 > So, while --simple-values might be reasonable for -stack-list-locals, it's
 > not all that needed for -var-list-children.

I can't see where it's needed, but its more trouble to remove than to fix.

-- 
Nick                                           http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob