From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16128 invoked by alias); 26 Jan 2006 07:20:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 16117 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Jan 2006 07:20:30 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from main.gmane.org (HELO ciao.gmane.org) (80.91.229.2) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 07:20:29 +0000 Received: from root by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1F21Qg-0001K6-Ta for gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 08:20:26 +0100 Received: from zigzag.lvk.cs.msu.su ([158.250.17.23]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 08:20:26 +0100 Received: from ghost by zigzag.lvk.cs.msu.su with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 08:20:26 +0100 To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com From: Vladimir Prus Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add fullname field for MI -break-info command Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 07:20:00 -0000 Message-ID: References: <200601241932.16022.ghost@cs.msu.su> <20060124211334.GB26974@nevyn.them.org> <200601251631.19779.ghost@cs.msu.su> <20060125134645.GC20856@brasko.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit User-Agent: KNode/0.8.2 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-01/txt/msg00423.txt.bz2 Bob Rossi wrote: > On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 04:31:19PM +0300, Vladimir Prus wrote: >> On Wednesday 25 January 2006 00:13, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: >> >> > > + { >> > > + struct symtab_and_line sal = find_pc_line >> > > (b->loc->address, >> > > 0); + symtab_to_fullname (sal.symtab); >> > > + >> > > + if (sal.symtab->fullname) >> > > + { >> > > + annotate_field(10); >> > >> > annotate_field (10); >> >> Is that a formatting change, or moving the "annotate_field" call out of >> "if"? >> >> > But I don't think you need this at all; there's no point emitting >> > annotations when we're guarded by ui_out_is_mi_like_p. >> >> For a future: can you explain what "annotate_field" does? The annotate.h >> file has no comments at all, and gdbint has "annotate_field" only inside >> code examples. And generally, what are "annotations"? > > Annotations were the old interface used between GDB and front ends. It > was all that was available before MI. For your own sanity, never ever > try to deal with them. Does it mean that: 1. No new code should ever contain a call to "annonate_*" functions? 2. It's planned to drop this "annotation" thing completely? - Volodya