From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1022 invoked by alias); 30 Mar 2011 14:05:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 1013 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Mar 2011 14:05:06 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-qw0-f41.google.com (HELO mail-qw0-f41.google.com) (209.85.216.41) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 14:05:02 +0000 Received: by qwa26 with SMTP id 26so1067236qwa.0 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 07:05:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.37.11 with SMTP id v11mr1025307qcd.199.1301493901099; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 07:05:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.235.3 with HTTP; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 07:04:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <31246347.post@talk.nabble.com> From: Eran Ifrah Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 14:05:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: MI Interface - interpretation of value returned by -stack-list-locals (C++) To: Tom Tromey Cc: BarrRobot , gdb@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-03/txt/msg00200.txt.bz2 On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> ">" =3D=3D BarrRobot =A0 writes: > >>> Is there an intention to present the entire output of these commands >>> in the defined MI output syntax > > I haven't heard of any plans in that direction. > >>> and if not, what is the recommended way to handle this part of the >>> output, i.e. is it the expectation to present it 'as is' to the user, >>> or is it safe to attempt to parse out the component parts and their >>> values with rules derived from the CLI output? > > All I can think of is that you could make a varobj for the arguments you > are interested in displaying in more detail. This is how I chose to implement this under codelite IDE, the problem is that it doubles the calls I need to pass to the GDB process from the IDE - and when you have a frame with many variable (I am using -stack-list-locals followed by -stack-list-arguments 2 0 0 to get the function arguments as well) it starts to show lag. BTW, I noticed the Mac's GDB creates a varobj per argument on the stack / function arg (i.e. the output for -stack-list-locals is list of varobj ID, the attribute name is the varobj unique id) > > Tom > --=20 Eran Ifrah Cross platform, open source C++ IDE: http://www.codelite.org