From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 951 invoked by alias); 19 Feb 2010 20:11:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 936 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Feb 2010 20:11:49 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 19 Feb 2010 20:11:40 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o1JKB9dG011320 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 19 Feb 2010 15:11:09 -0500 Received: from host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o1JKB67O015096 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 19 Feb 2010 15:11:08 -0500 Received: from host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o1JKB6Kw031297; Fri, 19 Feb 2010 21:11:06 +0100 Received: (from jkratoch@localhost) by host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id o1JKB5FT031287; Fri, 19 Feb 2010 21:11:05 +0100 Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 20:11:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Vladimir Prus Cc: Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Chris Moller Subject: Re: pr 11067 patch Message-ID: <20100219201105.GA30692@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> References: <20100212041137.GE2907@adacore.com> <4B75783D.6050103@redhat.com> <20100213114933.GA595@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <4B76F5CE.30704@redhat.com> <20100219142846.GC2779@adacore.com> <20100219143609.GA1210@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <4B7EA5F9.6030001@redhat.com> <20100219185004.GA23504@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <4B7EEBC8.7060206@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4B7EEBC8.7060206@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) 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: 2010-02/txt/msg00506.txt.bz2 On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 20:51:36 +0100, Chris Moller wrote: > That limited the format change to unsummarised top-level "p 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 \\)0\"" \ "eval variable anone" Thanks, Jan