From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28308 invoked by alias); 20 Jan 2004 01:22:54 -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 28268 invoked from network); 20 Jan 2004 01:22:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Jan 2004 01:22:53 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.30 #1 (Debian)) id 1AikbU-0001K4-Eu for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 20:22:52 -0500 Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 01:22:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC]: remove inconsistency in printcmd.c: print_scalar_formatted Message-ID: <20040120012252.GA4828@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com 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> <400C7948.9060300@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <400C7948.9060300@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg00542.txt.bz2 On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 07:41:44PM -0500, Andrew Cagney 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. > > > >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 > >(gdb) print/i doublevar > >???? [no preference really] > > No. That would be wrong. print/ prints the value (not the > implementation) using the specified format. Being able to examine the > underlying implementation in various formats is more of an "examine" > command. Andrew, please explain to us all how you can respond to "I think this would be a better, different-than-the-current behavior" with "No, that would be wrong". -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer