Re: pr 11067 patch

[Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>]

On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 20:51:36 +0100, Chris Moller wrote:
> That limited the format change to unsummarised top-level "p <enum
> thingy>" circumstances.  If I make that test
> 
>      if (options->summary || recurse != 0 ||
>                 ui_out_is_mi_like_p (interp_ui_out
>    (top_level_interpreter ())))
> 
> i.e., checking if the print is to an MI whatever-it-is, the MI tests
> that failed under the original patch (mi-var-display and
> mi2-var-display) run okay as they originally were, which suggests to
> me that MI will go on getting enums formatted the way it expects
> them.  Will that work?

I would prefer the value_print_options way but rather:


Vladimir, if CLI start print instead of
	(gdb) p enum_var
	$1 = enumerator2
now:
	(gdb) p enum_var
	$1 = enumerator2 = (enum uenum) 2

should MI also print this "pretty printed" enum syntax or should it stick with
the original one? Therefore should be made this change?

 mi_gdb_test "-var-evaluate-expression anone" \
-       "\\^done,value=\"A\"" \
+       "\\^done,value=\"A = \\(enum <anonymous>\\)0\"" \
        "eval variable anone"


Thanks,
Jan