Re: MI: -var-list-children --simple-values

[Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>]

On Wednesday 15 November 2006 17:43, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> 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.  

Why? Especially, why it's better than --all-values. Note that --simple-values 
only don't print values of arrays, structures and unions, and if you check 
c_value_of_variable, you'll see that for structures just a literal string is 
returned, while for array very trivial formatting operation is used.

In other words, --all-values do not involve any complex processing, reading 
data from the target, or anything. What are we trying to save by 
adding --simple-values?

> 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.

Heh ;-)

- Volodya