Re: Option to elide single-bit bitfields when printing structures

[Michael Snyder <msnyder@cygnus.com>]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> > Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 00:16:52 -0800
> > From: "Zack Weinberg" <zackw@Stanford.EDU>
> > >
> > > > > Then IMHO this feature is less helpful than it could be.  See the list
> > > > > above: can you really remember all of the flags if they are not shown?
> > > > > And if half of them are shown, is it really easy to know which are and
> > > > > which aren't?
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps you are not familiar with the way these flags get used in gcc.
> > >
> > > I thought you were proposing a general-purpose feature, not something
> > > specific to GCC.
> >
> > I am proposing a general-purpose feature.  The GCC usage is a specific
> > example of why it would be useful.
> 
> The question is whether there are other examples of why such a limited
> functionality, whereby only single-bit fields which are set can be
> easily displated, would be useful.  My experience with debugging
> several large applications (which doesn't include debugging GCC) seems
> to say NO.  But that's just me.

No, its you plus me (at least).  GDB is not really set up to facilitate
a diverse set of features for individual commands.  I am in favor of a
relatively high standard of usefulness before adding a feature.  Too many
features would definitely tend to spoil the soup.