From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3289 invoked by alias); 20 Sep 2005 07:31:19 -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 3202 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Sep 2005 07:31:02 -0000 Received: from s142-179-108-108.bc.hsia.telus.net (HELO takamaka.act-europe.fr) (142.179.108.108) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 07:31:02 +0000 Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id A867F47E75; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:30:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 07:31:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] print arrays with indexes Message-ID: <20050920073058.GR2496@adacore.com> References: <20050907202402.GF1540@adacore.com> <20050914171319.GD27542@adacore.com> <20050917204930.GB8777@nevyn.them.org> <20050917215138.GB2496@adacore.com> <20050918034639.GB6990@nevyn.them.org> <20050918054109.GD2496@adacore.com> <20050918191943.GA27191@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2005-09/txt/msg00175.txt.bz2 Now that Mark and Eli have commented as well, it seems that the majority of us prefer a feature controled by a single knob. Eli seems ok with a two-knob approach, but doesn't seemed resistant to the one-knob either, so I'll conclude that the single-know approach is what we are going to implement. Fair enough? In terms of the actual specifics of that control, I think we have a general agreement that a user should be able to use "on" and "off" keywords to set it. So we need a way to provide an "on/off/threashold" interface. So far, I think we are ok with this approach. Something we haven't really formally decided though, is the significance of the threashold. Is it: 1. If array size > threshold, then print indexes 2. If array size < threshold, then print indexes (you can replace the strict comparison operator by <= or >=, to be discussed too). Now, the sticky part: How to implement this new interface. I'll argue that it's best to implement something new. I don't like hijacking an old interface to unsigned integer and adding some aliases to a couple of values. My reasoning is that saying that OFF is an alias for UINT_MAX will make sense for certain cases while it actually won't for other cases. Actually, which value to use for OFF will depend on the what the threashold actually means. Short of implemeting something new, I can suggest enhancing the API for unsigned integer settings, by adding a way to provide aliases and their corresponding values. Drawback, we will probably have to make quite a fair number of changes, at all the places where these routines are already used. I vote for a new API. I think we should also review the usage of the current ones, probably cleanup a bit some of the ones that were on the road to obsolescence (IIRC), maybe rationalize a bit more our API if needed, and add some documentation. But that should be a separate thread. I don't think I will be able to handle all of this, but I can certainly help. -- Joel