From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23649 invoked by alias); 9 Jan 2013 18:40:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 23568 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Jan 2013 18:40:57 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 09 Jan 2013 18:40:52 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98A192E538; Wed, 9 Jan 2013 13:40:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id x0vMLy2Q1pz0; Wed, 9 Jan 2013 13:40:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30AC72E0E6; Wed, 9 Jan 2013 13:40:51 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 94627C1621; Wed, 9 Jan 2013 22:40:45 +0400 (RET) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 18:40:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA/commit+NEWS 1/2] Add command set/show debug unwind. Message-ID: <20130109184045.GG6143@adacore.com> References: <1357728781-15073-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <1357728781-15073-2-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <20130109124026.GC6415@host2.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130109124026.GC6415@host2.jankratochvil.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) 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: 2013-01/txt/msg00180.txt.bz2 > > This patch adds a new debug setting to be used by frame unwinders. > > It should be relatively straightforward. > > is the existing "set debug frame 1" output too disturbing? > I was using that one already during unwinders debugging. Actually, why not? Tristan and I discussed it, and we don't necessarily see a problem with it. I find it a little verbose, so I'd like to give it a try, and see how it works out. But, a priori, I think using "set debug frame" would be a good suggestion. To answer Tom's question about using zinteger, I think it comes from what we have been typically using at the time when the code was written. We had the zinteger vs boolean discussion only recently... If we prefer staying with the new setting, we will change it to a boolean. Thanks for the suggestion! -- Joel