Re: [PATCH] -stack-info-frames

Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-06-18T01:58:02Z

On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 01:29:53PM +1200, Nick Roberts wrote:
>
> > Is "-stack-info-frame N" basically the same as "-stack-list-frames N N"?
>
> I didn't allow -stack-info-frame an argument. OK, lets forget this
> implementation. Perhaps we could add something about "-stack-list-frames N N"
> in the documentation. I know its kind of obvious, but I didn't realise
> initially.
>
> How about the rest of the patch:
>
> (mi_cmd_stack_list_frames, mi_cmd_stack_info_depth):
> Don't test for stack.
> (mi_cmd_stack_select_frame): Do not allow an argument.
> Don't test for stack.

OK (except the changelog is wrong - it's Require an argument, not Do
not allow, right?).

A nice followup if you're feeling inspired would be to remove the traces
of -stack-info-frame from both gdb/mi/ and the manual, since it really
does not sound useful at this point.

Not sure what we could add to the docs. This is what's there:
If invoked without arguments, this command prints a backtrace for the
whole stack. If given two integer arguments, it shows the frames whose
levels are between the two arguments (inclusive). If the two arguments
are equal, it shows the single frame at the corresponding level.

--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC