From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6762 invoked by alias); 18 Sep 2005 03:37:27 -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 6754 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Sep 2005 03:37:24 -0000 Received: from romy.inter.net.il (HELO romy.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.66) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Sun, 18 Sep 2005 03:37:24 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-83-130-212-92.inter.net.il [83.130.212.92]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.8-GR) with ESMTP id CKM28104 (AUTH halo1); Sun, 18 Sep 2005 06:37:20 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 03:37:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Joel Brobecker CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <20050917215138.GB2496@adacore.com> (message from Joel Brobecker on Sat, 17 Sep 2005 14:51:38 -0700) Subject: Re: [RFA] print arrays with indexes Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20050906202018.GC1153@adacore.com> <20050906205710.GA12715@nevyn.them.org> <20050907053951.GC1540@adacore.com> <20050907132316.GA3622@nevyn.them.org> <20050907202402.GF1540@adacore.com> <20050914171319.GD27542@adacore.com> <20050917204930.GB8777@nevyn.them.org> <20050917215138.GB2496@adacore.com> X-SW-Source: 2005-09/txt/msg00154.txt.bz2 > Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 14:51:38 -0700 > From: Joel Brobecker > > > Then doesn't it make sense to agree on the interface first? :-) > > Right! I just wanted to hear a few other opinions to choose. > Perhaps Eli and/or Mark would like to comment? > > In any case: > > > You suggested on/off/auto and a separate threshold. Jim suggested > > on/off/threshold. I prefer on/off/threshold of those two options, > > although it may be a bit tricky to get GDB to handle that correctly. > > Want to give it a try, or continue discussing alternatives? > > I'm willing to give it a try. I couldn't find a mechanism in our > "set/show" machinery that handled something like this, though. > Unless I missed it, that's something I'll need to add too. I don't see any disadvantages to the on/off/auto+threshold method that would justify yet another add_* interface. Can someone please tell why is that a good idea?