From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14099 invoked by alias); 29 Dec 2008 19:30:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 14090 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Dec 2008 19:30:42 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 19:30:03 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E565D10A05; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 19:30:00 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFF0810594; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 19:30:00 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LHNoO-0007k4-7z; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:30:00 -0500 Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 19:30:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Mark Kettenis Subject: Re: PR 8507 - Remote watchpoint limit really large Message-ID: <20081229193000.GA29455@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Mark Kettenis References: <200812290525.11823.pedro@codesourcery.com> <200812291222.mBTCMuZt004718@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <200812291912.56599.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200812291912.56599.pedro@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) 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: 2008-12/txt/msg00450.txt.bz2 On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 07:12:56PM +0000, Pedro Alves wrote: > > How about var_zuinteger, for zeroable unsigned Integer? > > Hmm, I was trying to convey the idea that negatives mean unlimited, > as the watchpoint/breakpoint limits command explicitly mentions > that. But, it's just a name, I'm not married to any. Just because the existing names are abbreviated doesn't mean they all have to be... how about var_unlimited_uinteger, documented as an unsigned integer value or the string "unlimited"? And then we do not need to overload any number in the UI, just internally. We could leave the variable an int, let [0, INT_MAX - 1] be valid, and INT_MAX mean unlimited. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery