Re: [RFC] Changes to signed char and unsigned char handling

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Sat, Jul 07, 2007 at 01:03:51PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 17:34:08 -0400
> > From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> > 
> > > 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.
> 
> Well, maybe we should ask for his opinion on your suggested patch.

If it's all right with you, I'll leave this up to you.  I've no
complaints about asking his opinion, but I don't really think it's
necessary either.

> > 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}.
> 
> Aha, I see that I was doubly confused.  So maybe this is more clear
> yet:
> 
>    in fact, @code{display} decides
>    whether to use @code{print} or @code{x} depending on your format
>    specification---it uses @code{x} if you specify either the @samp{i}
>    or @samp{s} format, or a unit size; otherwise it uses @code{print}.

This version's fine with me.  Thanks again.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery