From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24187 invoked by alias); 19 Jan 2004 23:27:49 -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 24171 invoked from network); 19 Jan 2004 23:27:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Jan 2004 23:27:46 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i0JNRkl10550 for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:27:46 -0500 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i0JNRka10947 for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:27:46 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn50-57.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.57]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0JNRjR0009625 for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:27:45 -0500 Received: from saguaro (saguaro.lan [192.168.64.2]) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id i0JNRecG002040 for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 16:27:40 -0700 Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 23:27:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC]: remove inconsistency in printcmd.c: print_scalar_formatted Message-Id: <20040119162740.3988769d@saguaro> In-Reply-To: <20040119231853.GA6132@nevyn.them.org> References: <3FDA26B1.6010704@redhat.com> <1031212221704.ZM22539@localhost.localdomain> <3FDA636F.30204@redhat.com> <400C58E6.4070908@redhat.com> <400C60C0.9040702@gnu.org> <20040119231853.GA6132@nevyn.them.org> Organization: Red Hat Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg00540.txt.bz2 On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:18:53 -0500 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 05:57:04PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > >Ping. Could we continue discussing this topic and come to some form of > > >resolution? The new additional ia64 test failures are annoying. > > > > I thought there was basic agreement with your change (It sux less then > > the current behavior :-). Yes, change it. That way, behavior such as: > > (gdb) print/x 1.0 > > will at least be more consistent. > > Yeah, I agree, and re-reading Kevin's message I don't think he objects. Right, no objection from me, but... > How do you all feel about a more sweeping change instead: > (gdb) set $doublevar = 2.0 > (gdb) print doublevar > $1 = 2.0 > (gdb) print (int) doublevar > $1 = 2 > (gdb) print/x (int) doublevar > $1 = 2 > (gdb) print/x doublevar > $1 = 0xc000000000000000 ...I like this better. Kevin