From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18098 invoked by alias); 20 Jan 2004 00:41:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 18071 invoked from network); 20 Jan 2004 00:41:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.129.200.20) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Jan 2004 00:41:47 -0000 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3B052B8F; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:41:44 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <400C7948.9060300@gnu.org> Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 00:41:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030820 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC]: remove inconsistency in printcmd.c: print_scalar_formatted References: <3FDA26B1.6010704@redhat.com> <1031212221704.ZM22539@localhost.localdomain> <3FDA636F.30204@redhat.com> <400C58E6.4070908@redhat.com> <400C60C0.9040702@gnu.org> <20040119231853.GA6132@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg00541.txt.bz2 > On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 05:57:04PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >> >Ping. Could we continue discussing this topic and come to some form of >> >resolution? The new additional ia64 test failures are annoying. > >> >> I thought there was basic agreement with your change (It sux less then >> the current behavior :-). Yes, change it. That way, behavior such as: >> (gdb) print/x 1.0 >> will at least be more consistent. > > > Yeah, I agree, and re-reading Kevin's message I don't think he objects. > > How do you all feel about a more sweeping change instead: > (gdb) set $doublevar = 2.0 > (gdb) print doublevar > $1 = 2.0 > (gdb) print (int) doublevar > $1 = 2 > (gdb) print/x (int) doublevar > $1 = 2 > (gdb) print/x doublevar > $1 = 0xc000000000000000 > (gdb) print/i doublevar > ???? [no preference really] No. That would be wrong. print/ prints the value (not the implementation) using the specified format. Being able to examine the underlying implementation in various formats is more of an "examine" command. Andrew