From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5068 invoked by alias); 6 Jul 2007 21:34:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 5054 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Jul 2007 21:34:18 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 06 Jul 2007 21:34:12 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D52C4982CF; Fri, 6 Jul 2007 21:34:10 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5B21982A5; Fri, 6 Jul 2007 21:34:10 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1I6vRI-0001Rm-RQ; Fri, 06 Jul 2007 17:34:08 -0400 Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 21:34:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Changes to signed char and unsigned char handling Message-ID: <20070706213408.GA5154@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20070705135402.GA4300@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-07/txt/msg00121.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jul 06, 2007 at 01:33:24PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 09:54:02 -0400 > > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > > > 3. Treat "char" as a character, but "unsigned char" and "signed char" > > as numbers > > Didn't RMS object to this change? His objection was to the original change, which is currently in HEAD, to not print "unsigned char *" variables as strings. It was not an especially definitive objection; I think that this version is better than the behavior of earlier versions of GDB, which would satisfy his stated concern. I'm willing to change my mind on the approach; that's why it's an RFC :-) > The changes for the manual are also okay, but I have a few > comments/requests: Thank you, as usual. I will incorporate your suggestions. > > @@ -5932,8 +5946,7 @@ displays you request manually using @cod > > specify the output format you prefer; in fact, @code{display} decides > > whether to use @code{print} or @code{x} depending on how elaborate your > > format specification is---it uses @code{x} if you specify a unit size, > > -or one of the two formats (@samp{i} and @samp{s}) that are only > > -supported by @code{x}; otherwise it uses @code{print}. > > +the @samp{i} format, or the @samp{s} format; otherwise it uses @code{print}. > > This change produces a sentence that is hard to parse: > > in fact, @code{display} decides > whether to use @code{print} or @code{x} depending on how elaborate your > format specification is---it uses @code{x} if you specify a unit size, > the @samp{i} format, or the @samp{s} format; otherwise it uses @code{print}. > > The conditions under which `x' is used are described, but the > conditions under which we use `i' or `s' are left unspecified. We don't use `i' or `s'; the use of `i' or `s' in the user's format specification causes `display' to behave like `examine' instead of like `print'. How is this? in fact, @code{display} decides whether to use @code{print} or @code{x} depending on your format specification---@code{display} uses @code{x} if you specify a unit size, the @samp{i} format, or the @samp{s} format; otherwise it uses @code{print}. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery