From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-30797-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 25260 invoked by alias); 21 Jan 2008 15:15:39 -0000
Received: (qmail 25250 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Jan 2008 15:15:38 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from imr1.ericy.com (HELO imr1.ericy.com) (198.24.6.9)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:15:12 +0000
Received: from eusrcmw751.eamcs.ericsson.se (eusrcmw751.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.77.51]) 	by imr1.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m0LFF8kU015629 	for <gdb@sources.redhat.com>; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 09:15:10 -0600
Received: from ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se ([142.133.1.72]) by eusrcmw751.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); 	 Mon, 21 Jan 2008 09:15:02 -0600
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; 	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: -var-update using formatted value
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:15:00 -0000
Message-ID: <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA2DE0A0@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se>
References: <fmius3$rv6$1@ger.gmane.org> <200801201303.29804.ghost@cs.msu.su> <18323.43998.22471.788933@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <200801202327.30376.ghost@cs.msu.su>
From: "Marc Khouzam" <marc.khouzam@ericsson.com>
Cc: <gdb@sources.redhat.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb.sourceware.org>
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: 2008-01/txt/msg00210.txt.bz2

> > Anyway, I withdraw my objection to your patch, if the patch (or similar=
) in the
> > thread I mentioned (http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2006-05/msg000=
08.html)
> > is also approved.  So there appears to be some consensus here.
>=20
> FWIW, I agree that the patch in
> http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2006-05/msg00008.html
> is good, as it removes the need to do -var-evaluate-expression=20
> or -var-update after setting variable's format.

This is great.
However, instead of Vladimir's patch, can we instead only use the natural f=
ormat?
A patch similar to what I suggested in: http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2008-0=
1/msg00072.html
Maybe renaming the print_value field to something more descriptive?

This should also fix the var-update problem when floats and strings only ch=
ange
in the natural format (please refer to the sub-thread http://sourceware.org=
/ml/gdb/2008-01/msg00175.html)
In my mind, this will revert to what var-update was doing in GDB 6.5 (not s=
ure about 6.6)
with the added benefit of fixing the string problem that Nick mentioned ("G=
NU" vs "GDB")

Thanks a lot!

Marc