From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10223 invoked by alias); 6 Dec 2001 17:39:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 10179 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2001 17:39:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 Dec 2001 17:39:31 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA11659; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 11:39:10 -0600 Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 09:39:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200112061739.LAA11659@duracef.shout.net> To: drow@mvista.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFC: Formatting of type output X-SW-Source: 2001-12/txt/msg00055.txt.bz2 Good morning Daniel, > Does anything mechanical depend on the format of type output, besides our > testsuite? AFAIK, the white-space changes between v2 g++ and v3 g++ haven't caused any external consumers of this information to break in such a way that bug reports have reached the gnats database or the gdb mailing lists. So I would suspect "no". > Does anyone have any radically strong feelings about how it > should be formatted? Basically no. > Similarly, does anyone prefer to have vtbl and vbase pointers explicitly > printed? Are you talking about "ptype *Foo" or "print *pFoo" here? At my day job, I use cygwin + gcc 2.95.3 + pthreads + gdb, and the vtbl pointer is a quick indicator whether a pointer points to a sane, live object. That is a case of "print *pFoo". > It seems cleaner to me to suppress them, and perhaps offer another > way to print them explicitly. That would be fine with me. Michael C