From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27991 invoked by alias); 9 Jul 2018 19:01:53 -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 27940 invoked by uid 89); 9 Jul 2018 19:01:47 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=bringing, Whatever, intuitive, Hx-languages-length:1060 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.73) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 09 Jul 2018 19:01:45 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 726E540122C4; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 19:01:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn04.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.4]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DD67111CB9A; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 19:01:43 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [RFA_v3 0/8] Implement 'frame apply COMMAND', enhance 'thread apply COMMAND' To: Philippe Waroquiers , Andrew Burgess References: <20180624183708.888-1-philippe.waroquiers@skynet.be> <20180629122158.GH15881@embecosm.com> <1530303340.1512.15.camel@skynet.be> <1530304703.1512.17.camel@skynet.be> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2018 19:01:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1530304703.1512.17.camel@skynet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SW-Source: 2018-07/txt/msg00220.txt.bz2 On 06/29/2018 09:38 PM, Philippe Waroquiers wrote: > On Fri, 2018-06-29 at 22:15 +0200, Philippe Waroquiers wrote: >> Whatever we take, we have to ensure that gdb.texinfo systematically use  >> it to identify a frame as shown by backtrace (#integer). > Note that in the online help, we have already some usages of level > speaking about frames. > > So, all that taken into account, my preference would be to remove > the frame number wording, > and use frame level everywhere in the doc and online help : > LEVEL seems more clear/intuitive than NUMBER or ID > > But whatever choice is ok for me. Ahah, I did warn about having to decide this at . Thanks Andrew for bringing this up. I agree, "level" seems like the best option to me. I should have suggested that one more strongly instead of "id" when I wrote the above, but I was distracted thinking that we'd end up with "count" instead. :-) Thanks, Pedro Alves