From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32045 invoked by alias); 21 Sep 2009 22:10:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 32032 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Sep 2009 22:10:55 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from viper.snap.net.nz (HELO viper.snap.net.nz) (202.37.101.25) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 22:10:49 +0000 Received: from totara (126.61.255.123.dynamic.snap.net.nz [123.255.61.126]) by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48F113DA15B; Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:10:42 +1200 (NZST) Received: by totara (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 470F3C166; Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:10:41 +1200 (NZST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <19127.63969.180199.561232@totara.tehura.co.nz> Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 22:10:00 -0000 To: Vladimir Prus Cc: Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [MI] -stack-list-variables In-Reply-To: <200909212002.44063.vladimir@codesourcery.com> References: <200909191412.37692.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <20090921152746.GY8910@adacore.com> <200909212002.44063.vladimir@codesourcery.com> From: nickrob@snap.net.nz (Nick Roberts) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-09/txt/msg00685.txt.bz2 > > But what would happen the day a front-end starts caring? Are they > > going to have to send 2 MI commands to get the info? > > No. The frontend author would write an email to gdb@sources.redhat.com, > explaining the reasons, and a new field will be added as result. That's > how I'd prefer MI to evolve, as opposed to adding information ahead of > the time. That's exactly what I have done. and: > I am frankly surprised by the amount of support for this feature, and > the fact that this support say this is harmless, and possibly > useful, but does not name any single frontend that actually separates > arguments from "true" locals. I'm not sure that `proof by example' should be necessary. but here's an example showing Totalview separate the two: http://upc.lbl.gov/docs/user/ProcessWindow.png Totalview is probably the world's best C/C++ debugger (apart fron GDB, of course!). I'm sure that if their users didn't want this feature, Etnus would remove it. As a maintainer I would try to accommodate such requests and reserve my judgements for technical matters. -- Nick http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob