From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18716 invoked by alias); 31 Jul 2007 11:02:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 18708 invoked by uid 22791); 31 Jul 2007 11:02:55 -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; Tue, 31 Jul 2007 11:02:53 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 572DC982A3; Tue, 31 Jul 2007 11:02:52 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2033198299; Tue, 31 Jul 2007 11:02:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IFpV3-0001pD-Lu; Tue, 31 Jul 2007 07:02:49 -0400 Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 11:06:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Nick Roberts Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9_P=F6nitz?= , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Type information in -data-evaluate-expression Message-ID: <20070731110249.GA6795@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Nick Roberts , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9_P=F6nitz?= , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <200707301540.59361.apoenitz@trolltech.com> <200707310922.14919.apoenitz@trolltech.com> <18094.60992.646812.570359@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <200707311113.15152.apoenitz@trolltech.com> <18095.3821.812493.749018@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <18095.3821.812493.749018@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> 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/msg00329.txt.bz2 On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 10:29:01PM +1200, Nick Roberts wrote: > >... > > Uh... I see a possible way to improve things, but this would be certainly > > _way_ more intrusive than the proposed two-line addition we are currently > > discussing so extensively ;-) > > I'm discussing other, possibly better, alternatives. I guess there's no harm > in your change as long as you provide a test for the testsuite, documentation, > maintenance etc... but a global maintainer approves the change anyway. I understand that we'd rather people do complicated things with varobjs, but displaying the type of one-shot expressions seems reasonable to me. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery