From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Snyder To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: zackw@Stanford.EDU, dberlin@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Option to elide single-bit bitfields when printing structures Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 14:41:00 -0000 Message-id: <3A9C2A54.1A15D2FD@cygnus.com> References: <20010224131046.E13956@wolery.stanford.edu> <20010227001652.H27567@wolery.stanford.edu> <200102271904.OAA05522@indy.delorie.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-02/msg00487.html Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 00:16:52 -0800 > > From: "Zack Weinberg" > > > > > > > > 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.