From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28506 invoked by alias); 17 Sep 2005 22:07:59 -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 27843 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Sep 2005 22:07:50 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Sat, 17 Sep 2005 22:07:50 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.52) id 1EGkqa-0002jA-L3; Sat, 17 Sep 2005 18:07:48 -0400 Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 22:07:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] print arrays with indexes Message-ID: <20050917220748.GH8777@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20050906202018.GC1153@adacore.com> <20050906205710.GA12715@nevyn.them.org> <20050907053951.GC1540@adacore.com> <20050907132316.GA3622@nevyn.them.org> <20050907202402.GF1540@adacore.com> <20050914171319.GD27542@adacore.com> <20050917204930.GB8777@nevyn.them.org> <20050917215138.GB2496@adacore.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050917215138.GB2496@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-SW-Source: 2005-09/txt/msg00129.txt.bz2 On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 02:51:38PM -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > Then doesn't it make sense to agree on the interface first? :-) > > Right! I just wanted to hear a few other opinions to choose. > Perhaps Eli and/or Mark would like to comment? > > In any case: > > > You suggested on/off/auto and a separate threshold. Jim suggested > > on/off/threshold. I prefer on/off/threshold of those two options, > > although it may be a bit tricky to get GDB to handle that correctly. > > Want to give it a try, or continue discussing alternatives? > > I'm willing to give it a try. I couldn't find a mechanism in our > "set/show" machinery that handled something like this, though. > Unless I missed it, that's something I'll need to add too. Yes, I'm afraid so. I'd recommend wiring it to a single unsigned integer. For this case 0 meaning "on" and UINT_MAX meaning "off" makes sense; for other uses (limit rather than threshold), the other way around would make more sense. I think it's reasonable to add new var_* items for this; that should be pretty easy. Maybe var_threshold. > But first, let's agree on the interface. I'm OK with Jim's suggestion. > How about we give other people a couple more days to think about it > and provide some feedback? And then I'll start working on the > implementation. OK. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC