Re: PR 11067

[Daniel Jacobowitz <dan at codesourcery dot com>]

On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 03:25:06PM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
> Yeah, I was going for parity and the /c format would not have been my first
> choice if we didn't already have it.  I think:
> 
> $2 = (enum frobozz) 1 = ENUM1
> 
> would be fine too, or maybe reverse the clauses.  "(type) digit" is
> probably what's most likely always to be pasteable anywhere, in case
> it's into a context where you don't have the same scope for the enum
> constant (in C++).

Something to consider is what contexts you want this output in.  I
think this would get old really fast:

$2 = { code = CODE_ADD = (enum code) 1, ops = OPS_TWO = (enum ops) 2 }

vs

$2 = { code = CODE_ADD, ops = OPS_TWO }
(gdb) p CODE_ADD
$3 = CODE_ADD = (enum code) 1

Hmm, can't say I like that format any better either, but there's got
to be a good one.  I usually p/d CODE_ADD to find out the value...

My takeaway point here is to consider the overall impact.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery