From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9498 invoked by alias); 18 Sep 2005 08:53:15 -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 9360 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Sep 2005 08:53:06 -0000 Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Sun, 18 Sep 2005 08:53:06 +0000 Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (root@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl [192.168.0.2]) by sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j8I8quc7015983; Sun, 18 Sep 2005 10:52:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost.sibelius.xs4all.nl [127.0.0.1]) by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.4/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j8I8qtro003797; Sun, 18 Sep 2005 10:52:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id j8I8qsh2031573; Sun, 18 Sep 2005 10:52:54 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 08:53:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200509180852.j8I8qsh2031573@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: eliz@gnu.org CC: brobecker@adacore.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: (message from Eli Zaretskii on Sun, 18 Sep 2005 06:37:19 +0300) Subject: Re: [RFA] print arrays with indexes 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> X-SW-Source: 2005-09/txt/msg00158.txt.bz2 > Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 06:37:19 +0300 > From: Eli Zaretskii > > > Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 14:51:38 -0700 > > From: Joel Brobecker > > > > > 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. > > I don't see any disadvantages to the on/off/auto+threshold method that > would justify yet another add_* interface. Can someone please tell > why is that a good idea? Because it is more complicated as a user interface; in the on/off/threshold case the user only has to remember a single command! Mark