Re: RFC (gdb/mi): -stack-list-locals

[Jason Molenda <jmolenda@apple.com>]

On Dec 12, 2003, at 12:43 PM, Nick Roberts wrote:

> Jason Molenda writes:
>
>>                                         ...Right now we have a
>> non-standard meaning for -stack-list-locals 2, and the FSF gdb will
>> have a different meaning for 2 with this patch going in.  No 
>> complaints
>> or anything, but it's unpleasant.
>
> I don't see why both our changes can't be accommodated.


Well, if we're both implementing a different meaning for "2" that's a 
pretty tough thing to accommodate. :-)

I didn't mean my statement as a criticism of this change or the work 
you're doing -- this is the sort of thing we inevitably have come up 
when we have lots of changes vs. the mainline.  We made our bed, etc.

> This patch uses a
> switch statement for each value of print_values. If for some reason 
> Apple need
> -stack-list-locals 2, I dont mind using another value.

"3" would be very nice. :)  But really, I think Andrew's suggestion is 
a better approach.  Instead of numeric values which represent an 
arbitrary collection of return values ("2" is "the things Apple's UI 
would like to get", "3" is "a smaller set of things that don't involve 
so much communication with the inferior"), text strings are a little 
less likely to conflict.


> Everybody seems to
> want Apple's changes, including their management. Rather than being
> unpleasant, perhaps this is an opportunity to make the case to that 
> management
> for resources to contribute back to the FSF.

Yeah, it's the usual problem.  Lots to do, not so much time in which to 
do it, sigh.


J