From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8478 invoked by alias); 18 Jun 2005 15:51:37 -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 8445 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Jun 2005 15:51:31 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Sat, 18 Jun 2005 15:51:31 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.51) id 1DjfbS-00011z-EA; Sat, 18 Jun 2005 11:51:26 -0400 Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 15:51:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Nick Roberts , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] -stack-info-frames Message-ID: <20050618155125.GA3663@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , Nick Roberts , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <17075.21529.964955.923197@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-SW-Source: 2005-06/txt/msg00285.txt.bz2 On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 01:19:55PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > From: Nick Roberts > > Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 20:53:32 +1200 > > Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > > > > > > Not sure what we could add to the docs. This is what's there: > > > > If invoked without arguments, this command prints a backtrace for the > > > > whole stack. If given two integer arguments, it shows the frames whose > > > > levels are between the two arguments (inclusive). If the two arguments > > > > are equal, it shows the single frame at the corresponding level. > > > > > > Is the actual/new behavior any different, and if so, how? > > > > The only behaviour that I've changed is that -stack-selected-frame must > > have an argument. This now accurately reflects existing documentation. > > But the above snippet is taken from the documentation of > "-stack-list-frames", not from "-stack-selected-frame". How is that > relevant? It isn't, really - Nick and I have been discussing -stack-info-frame versus -stack-list-frames. We didn't realize that you could use -stack-list-frame to list a single frame. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC