From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id tjQhIdrsll/sIgAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 11:35:54 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 7ACED1F08D; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 11:35:54 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7A151E590 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 11:35:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1990A385782D; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 15:35:53 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 1990A385782D DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1603726553; bh=jQYkT0f+tAPa3ga1N1Y421lRhYwSsItJ/VDGXcvEoUI=; h=Date:To:In-Reply-To:Subject:References:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=puYF23KeukpK1nscuDGkb5lf5pCIdTGTNc3kLoLGWwVCZzvB+LZ2cS994eKnmxRHq a2b60GYujgFmpMs7SQtBnSOXT2uoDY+JtNDe2zSdaAAeMB8eVgq9QqV6Wckyp9SG48 10abPpa0xsIFiLrVOrI3lsrch9GWLoco3o3nIMKE= Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:470:142:3::10]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9CA73385782D for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 15:35:50 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 9CA73385782D Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:56702) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kX4XG-00017F-0n; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 11:35:50 -0400 Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=2603 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1kX4XF-00072J-Ah; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 11:35:49 -0400 Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 17:35:41 +0200 Message-Id: <83blgpf19u.fsf@gnu.org> To: Luis Machado In-Reply-To: <53e13a05-ee8d-063a-fad7-b1fe3b43ad6c@linaro.org> (message from Luis Machado on Mon, 26 Oct 2020 11:59:29 -0300) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 20/24] Documentation for the new mtag commands References: <20201022200014.5189-1-luis.machado@linaro.org> <20201022200014.5189-21-luis.machado@linaro.org> <837drhla9o.fsf@gnu.org> <83y2jwj0dk.fsf@gnu.org> <53e13a05-ee8d-063a-fad7-b1fe3b43ad6c@linaro.org> X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Eli Zaretskii via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: david.spickett@linaro.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" > From: Luis Machado > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, david.spickett@linaro.org > Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 11:59:29 -0300 > > David Spicket (cc-ed, handling LLDB's MTE enablement), has suggested > "mtag withltag" as opposed to "mtag setltag", which implies we will only > display the modified/tagged version of a particular address expression, > without setting any value. > > How does that sound? Better than "setltag", I think.