From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7233 invoked by alias); 17 Apr 2006 13:56:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 7222 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Apr 2006 13:56:53 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nitzan.inter.net.il (HELO nitzan.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.20) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 17 Apr 2006 13:56:48 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-83-130-236-96.inter.net.il [83.130.236.96]) by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id DDR54029 (AUTH halo1); Mon, 17 Apr 2006 16:56:34 +0300 (IDT) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 05:31:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Vladimir Prus CC: jimb@red-bean.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <200604171616.28444.ghost@cs.msu.su> (message from Vladimir Prus on Mon, 17 Apr 2006 16:16:26 +0400) Subject: Re: printing wchar_t* Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <200604171301.59881.ghost@cs.msu.su> <200604171616.28444.ghost@cs.msu.su> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-04/txt/msg00241.txt.bz2 > From: Vladimir Prus > Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 16:16:26 +0400 > Cc: jimb@red-bean.com, > gdb@sources.redhat.com > > Eli, I think we're running in circles. Fine, then I'll just stop responding. This is my last (and hopefully short) contribution to this thread. > 1. For any wchar_t* value, be it value of a variable, or function > parameter three levels up the stack, or member of structure, I want > gdb to print that value in specific format that's easy for frontend > to use. String with escapes is fine. A noble goal. If you (or someone else) submits patches, I'll be happy to review them. > 2. I want that formatting to take effect both for MI commands and for > 'print' command, since the user can issue 'print' command manually. I think CLI and MI are two different cases, and thus simple solutions that are appropriate for MI (because it doesn't display) will not be good enough for CLI. > 3. I don't mind having this behaviour only when --interpreter=mi is > specified. I don't think `print' should behave differently depending on the interpreter, but whatever. > First you say it's not possible to detect encoding from environment. Then you > say you can't trust user/frontend. Together, that sounds like the problem of > making gdb print char* literals reliably is impossible. Is that what you're > trying to say? I'm trying to say that it would be absurd to add all that complexity to GDB.