From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26711 invoked by alias); 8 Jun 2013 03:48:00 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 26691 invoked by uid 89); 8 Jun 2013 03:47:58 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.1 Received: from mtaout21.012.net.il (HELO mtaout21.012.net.il) (80.179.55.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Sat, 08 Jun 2013 03:47:57 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout21.012.net.il by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MO200E002H7KF00@a-mtaout21.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Sat, 08 Jun 2013 06:47:54 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MO200EEJ2JUKB00@a-mtaout21.012.net.il>; Sat, 08 Jun 2013 06:47:54 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 05:21:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [PATCH] Teach -data-list-register-values to not include unavailable registers In-reply-to: <51B28F73.30301@codesourcery.com> To: Yao Qi Cc: palves@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <831u8dtg9u.fsf@gnu.org> References: <1370609650-23595-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <83sj0ut2ob.fsf@gnu.org> <51B23B65.8060309@redhat.com> <51B28F73.30301@codesourcery.com> X-SW-Source: 2013-06/txt/msg00188.txt.bz2 > Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 09:57:07 +0800 > From: Yao Qi > CC: Eli Zaretskii , > > >> + ** The command -data-list-register-values now accepts an optional > >> + "--skip-unavailable" option. When used, only available registers > >> + are displayed. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > "only the available" > > > > Fixed. > > On 06/08/2013 03:58 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: > >> "are to be returned". And why do you need the first part of that > >> >sentence, about the "context of trace frames"? Does it add anything > >> >to the description? > > Not really. Meanwhile, we've added uses of outside trace > > frames, so this it's really better to remove mention of trace frames. > > OK, the "context of trace frames" is removed. Here is the updated > patch. Fine with me, thanks.