Re: [PATCH: gdb/mi + doco] -var-update

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 03:08:53PM +1200, Nick Roberts wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
>  ...
>  > Nick, here's a patch based on yours which adds -var-list-children
>  > --simple-values and -var-update --simple-values/--all-values.  I like
>  > it; I think --simple-values is useful (since for anything other than
>  > simple values, an IDE is likely to want to print each member
>  > individually...).
>  > 
>  > I didn't revise the documentation because your last posted patch didn't
>  > include the current manual diff.  I also didn't write any testcases. 
>  > Both of these need to be done before the patch goes in.  Tested on
>  > i686-pc-linux-gnu, both the testsuite and by hand for -var-update.
>  > 
>  > No incompatible changes, option consistency, and behavior consistency. 
>  > I don't think I can do any better than this :-)  Nick, Eli, are you
>  > both OK with this version of the code changes?
> 
> Yes, this looks good.  I have tested it with my current version of gdb-mi.el
> and it seems to work.  I will try to dig out the relevant patch for the
> documentation and rework it, if Eli is also agreeable to this revision.

Thanks!  Once we've reached consensus on this, will your current gdb-mi.el
be compatible with FSF GDB again?

>  ...
>  > -  if (argc != 1 && argc != 2)
>  > +  if (argc > 2)
> 
> This gives:
> 
> (gdb)
> -var-list-children
> &"Variable object not found\n"
> ^error,msg="Variable object not found"
> (gdb) 
> 
> instead of:
> 
> (gdb)
> -var-list-children
> &"mi_cmd_var_list_children: Usage: NAME.\n"
> ^error,msg="mi_cmd_var_list_children: Usage: NAME."
> (gdb) 
> 
> I don't know if that's what you intended.

Blech.  That's what I get for trying to be clever.  No, the old version
was right.  I'll correct.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC