From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9515 invoked by alias); 15 Nov 2006 14:44:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 9479 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Nov 2006 14:44:05 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 14:43:54 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1GkLzL-0006fc-QP; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 09:43:43 -0500 Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 14:44:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Vladimir Prus Cc: Nick Roberts , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: MI: -var-list-children --simple-values Message-ID: <20061115144343.GA25165@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Vladimir Prus , Nick Roberts , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200611151250.11654.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <17754.63307.487745.34360@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <200611151450.19852.vladimir@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200611151450.19852.vladimir@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-11/txt/msg00124.txt.bz2 On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 02:50:19PM +0300, Vladimir Prus wrote: > On Wednesday 15 November 2006 14:17, Nick Roberts wrote: > > ISTR Daniel J wanted --simple-values for consistency with > > -stack-list-locals. As it's easy to fix, I suggest doing that. > > There are many things that are easy to fix, but it does not mean we need to > keep unused functionality. > > Perhaps Dan can comment why he really needed --simple-values. I felt that it was useful; I still do. Takeup of new MI features by IDEs seems to be a very slow process, since many support the system's installed GDB (which may be several revisions behind); reports of MI features that don't work also seems to be a bit spotty. So, honestly, I wouldn't read too much into it that no one noticed. It was new in GDB 6.4. > > I also note > > a mistake in the error message. Both are fixed below. > > I don't see any regression test for this crash. Are you going to > provide one? I'd appreciate it if one of you could do that, yes. Shame on me, I didn't write one at the time. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery