RE: RFC: "set" command with 2 arguments instead of one?

["Tedeschi, Walfred" <walfred.tedeschi@intel.com>]

Joel, Andreas, Doug and all,


Sorry for the long delay here. Now I could come back to the patches again.

Was there any outcome on that discussion. How do you think I could use the multiple arguments?


Thanks a lot and regards,
-Fred

-----Original Message-----
From: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org [mailto:gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org] On Behalf Of Joel Brobecker
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 8:13 AM
To: Doug Evans
Cc: Andreas Schwab; gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: RFC: "set" command with 2 arguments instead of one?

> This feels like a case where we need to at least think about some 
> future-proofing.
> One way some commands separate expressions is with commas.
> I'm not fond of optional commas (setting aside the thread on info 
> macro -at LOCATION,).
> IOW, if it turns out that we want to use commas down the road to 
> separate expressions here, then I'd prefer the commas be required 
> today.
> E.g., set mpx bound ADDR, LBOUND, UBOUND

> As for how to process multiple arguments to a "set" command, one way 
> would be to stage the value in a string parameter, and then have a set 
> handler post-process the result.

I think using commas systematically is making it worse for ourselves, since it prevents us from using gdb_buildargv to parse the command arguments for us. Commas also have a meaning in C, so arguably they could be used in expressions as well. But, if that's the way people prefer, then having a standard gdb_buildargv-like API that everyone consistently uses will make it easier for me to accept that decision.

--
Joel
Intel GmbH
Dornacher Strasse 1
85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen, Deutschland
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Christian Lamprechter, Hannes Schwaderer, Douglas Lusk
Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456
Ust.-IdNr./VAT Registration No.: DE129385895
Citibank Frankfurt a.M. (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052