From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-24420-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 8582 invoked by alias); 21 Feb 2006 06:55:07 -0000
Received: (qmail 8574 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Feb 2006 06:55:07 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from zigzag.lvk.cs.msu.su (HELO zigzag.lvk.cs.msu.su) (158.250.17.23)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 21 Feb 2006 06:55:07 +0000
Received: from Debian-exim by zigzag.lvk.cs.msu.su with spam-scanned (Exim 4.50) 	id 1FBRQO-0007vO-0j 	for gdb@sources.redhat.com; Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:55:04 +0300
Received: from zigzag.lvk.cs.msu.su ([158.250.17.23]) 	by zigzag.lvk.cs.msu.su with esmtp (Exim 4.50) 	id 1FBRQ4-0007qV-1d; Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:54:44 +0300
From: Vladimir Prus <ghost@cs.msu.su>
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
Subject: Re: MI: type prefixes for values
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 14:15:00 -0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.7.2
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>,  bob@brasko.net,  gdb@sources.redhat.com
References: <dt43qh$sns$1@sea.gmane.org> <uek1xbvhr.fsf@gnu.org> <20060220205735.GA27272@nevyn.them.org>
In-Reply-To: <20060220205735.GA27272@nevyn.them.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;   charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200602210954.43799.ghost@cs.msu.su>
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2006-02/txt/msg00280.txt.bz2

On Monday 20 February 2006 23:57, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 10:55:44PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > From: Vladimir Prus <ghost@cs.msu.su>
> > > Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 10:23:04 +0300
> > > Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>,
> > >  gdb@sources.redhat.com
> > >
> > > To make an even more specific question, I propose to:
> > >
> > >    - Remove type prefix from output of -data-evaluate-expression and
> > >         -var-evaluat-expression
> > >
> > >    - Add 'type' field to the output of -data-evaluate-expression
> > >
> > >
> > > Is this OK with everyone?
> >
> > I think a better suggestion surfaced in this discussion: don't try to
> > parse the output of -data-evaluate-expression, and use -var-create
> > instead.  Is that good enough?  If not, why not?
>
> Yes; I think (and Jim's experience seems to confirm) that
> -var-evaluate-expression is sufficiently cheap that if you need
> more than a simple string output, you should use it.

But output of -var-evaluate-expression includes that "type prefix" too! 

- Volodya