From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-67271-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 26874 invoked by alias); 28 Sep 2009 16:33:03 -0000
Received: (qmail 26862 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Sep 2009 16:33:02 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:32:58 +0000
Received: (qmail 22165 invoked from network); 28 Sep 2009 16:32:56 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO wind.localnet) (vladimir@127.0.0.2)   by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 28 Sep 2009 16:32:56 -0000
From: Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>
To: Nick Roberts <nickrob@snap.net.nz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH:gdb/mi] Update a specified list of variable objects
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:33:00 -0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.11.90 (Linux/2.6.24-24-generic; KDE/4.2.90; i686; svn-979530; 2009-06-10)
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
References: <19127.27863.973393.962895@totara.tehura.co.nz> <19128.3154.796642.554720@totara.tehura.co.nz> <19128.5244.844945.680565@totara.tehura.co.nz>
In-Reply-To: <19128.5244.844945.680565@totara.tehura.co.nz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;   charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <200909282032.55055.vladimir@codesourcery.com>
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2009-09/txt/msg00866.txt.bz2

On Tuesday 22 September 2009 Nick Roberts wrote:

>  > I've tried to address this point below.  It's even in unified diff format!

Thanks!

> 
> Actually it's probably better to use isdigit like below

In fact, it's probably even easier than than. Note this code from
mi_cmd_var_create:

  if (strcmp (name, "-") == 0)
    {
      xfree (name);
      name = varobj_gen_name ();
    }
  else if (!isalpha (*name))
    error (_("mi_cmd_var_create: name of object must begin with a letter"));

with this in mind,


> +      print_values = PRINT_NO_VALUES;
> +  else if (argc == 2 && isdigit (*argv[0]))
> +    {
> +      optind = 1;
> +      print_values = mi_parse_values_option (argv[0]);
> +    }

can be written like this:

  else if (argc == 2 && (isdigit (*argv[0]) || *argv[0] == '-'))
    {
      optind = 1;
      print_values = mi_parse_values_option (argv[0]);
    }

>    else
> -    name = (argv[1]);
> +    {
> +      while (1)
> +       {
> +         int opt = mi_getopt ("mi_cmd_var_update",
> +                              argc, argv, opts, &optind, &optarg);

And this code can be dropped. What do you think?

- Volodya