From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
To: Andrew STUBBS <andrew.stubbs@st.com>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] command trace / source verbose mode
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 17:33:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060706173315.GA26692@nevyn.them.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <44AD46E2.6020207@st.com>
On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 06:22:42PM +0100, Andrew STUBBS wrote:
> >On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 03:04:39PM +0000, Andrew STUBBS wrote:
> >>+/* Command tracing state. */
> >>+
> >>+int source_verbose = 0;
> >>+int commandtrace = 0;
> >
> >You've got two of these, but you always check them together. One
> >variable and incrementing/decrementing the trace level around source
> >would work too, right?
>
> Yeah, that might work too. But the downside is that if the 'set debug
> commandtrace on' is issued multiple times then the user will have to
> turn it off that many times also.
Oh, good point. Your way it is.
> >>+ /* Is there a '-v' in the string somewhere? */
> >>+ if (args && (minusv = strstr(args,"-v")))
> >
> >Is there any benefit to supporting this at the end? We've already got
> >some other commands that are strictly command [options] [args], I
> >think, or at least we do in MI; I would recommend following the same
> >model here. If it starts with -v it's an option.
>
> Does it do any harm beyond making the code a little more complex? I was
> rather expecting you to say something about the fact that it changes the
> argument to the --command option (I documented the change).
I think that's pretty strange too; I'd rather it didn't.
I don't know if it does any harm, but it does make the code more
complex, and I don't think it's particularly useful.
> I think keeping it under 'set debug' is a good idea, but maybe because
> it is for debugging other than GDB itself it should be promoted to
> somewhere more prominent. Hmmm, perhaps "set trace-commands" it the best
> option.
>
> I'll have a think about it, work on the other points you raised, and get
> back to you.
Sounds good. I think you're right about keeping it out of set debug
after all. Got to be careful here: we're debugging user commands
during debugging of a user program, but not debugging the debugger.
Say that three times fast, I dare you.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-07-06 17:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-11-16 18:01 Andrew STUBBS
2005-11-16 20:11 ` Eli Zaretskii
2005-11-17 16:21 ` Andrew STUBBS
2006-07-06 13:16 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-07-06 17:23 ` Andrew STUBBS
2006-07-06 17:33 ` Daniel Jacobowitz [this message]
2006-07-07 16:18 ` Andrew STUBBS
2006-07-08 12:02 ` Eli Zaretskii
2006-07-20 16:46 ` Andrew STUBBS
2006-07-20 19:24 ` Eli Zaretskii
2006-07-21 14:48 ` Andrew STUBBS
2006-07-21 14:49 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-07-20 19:38 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20060706173315.GA26692@nevyn.them.org \
--to=drow@false.org \
--cc=andrew.stubbs@st.com \
--cc=eliz@gnu.org \
--cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox