From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30762 invoked by alias); 9 Mar 2004 06:06:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 30744 invoked from network); 9 Mar 2004 06:06:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO monty-python.gnu.org) (199.232.76.173) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 Mar 2004 06:06:26 -0000 Received: from [207.232.27.5] (helo=WST0054) by monty-python.gnu.org with asmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1B0aMO-00047E-1f; Tue, 09 Mar 2004 01:05:00 -0500 Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 00:09:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Michael Snyder CC: jim.houston@comcast.net, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <404CFA95.30204@redhat.com> (message from Michael Snyder on Mon, 08 Mar 2004 22:58:29 +0000) Subject: Re: [patch] allow switching stacks Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <404CFA95.30204@redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00188.txt.bz2 > Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 22:58:29 +0000 > From: Michael Snyder > > Good idea, and nice implementation. My only suggestions are in > the user interface realm. I'm thinking something like > "non-contiguous stacks" would be more meaningful than "multiple > stacks" (there's really still only one stack, it's just broken > into two segments). Same goes for switch-stacks; it's a bit > non-intuitive to me. segmented-stack? discontiguous-stack? I share Muchael's concerns (I'd use "non-contiguous stack" in both instances). On top of that, if this patch is approved, it needs a corresponding patch for the manual, since we'd be introducing a new command. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30762 invoked by alias); 9 Mar 2004 06:06:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 30744 invoked from network); 9 Mar 2004 06:06:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO monty-python.gnu.org) (199.232.76.173) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 Mar 2004 06:06:26 -0000 Received: from [207.232.27.5] (helo=WST0054) by monty-python.gnu.org with asmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1B0aMO-00047E-1f; Tue, 09 Mar 2004 01:05:00 -0500 Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 06:06:00 -0000 Message-ID: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Michael Snyder CC: jim.houston@comcast.net, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <404CFA95.30204@redhat.com> (message from Michael Snyder on Mon, 08 Mar 2004 22:58:29 +0000) Subject: Re: [patch] allow switching stacks Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <404CFA95.30204@redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2004-03.o/txt/msg00188.txt Message-ID: <20040309060600.I_ehPjBxdgVWNKaZKO4bWZqXrTthNbDR60xN-x8ub7E@z> > Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 22:58:29 +0000 > From: Michael Snyder > > Good idea, and nice implementation. My only suggestions are in > the user interface realm. I'm thinking something like > "non-contiguous stacks" would be more meaningful than "multiple > stacks" (there's really still only one stack, it's just broken > into two segments). Same goes for switch-stacks; it's a bit > non-intuitive to me. segmented-stack? discontiguous-stack? I share Muchael's concerns (I'd use "non-contiguous stack" in both instances). On top of that, if this patch is approved, it needs a corresponding patch for the manual, since we'd be introducing a new command.