This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH: gdb/mi + doco] -var-update
Thanks for the prompt review. I think I understand the comments about
formatting. I can make these changes.
> > ! error (_("Unknown value for PRINT_VALUES: must be: 0 or \"--no-values\", 1 or \"--all-values\""));
>
> Please remove "--no-values" and "--all-values" from this string. They
> are literal strings that must not be translated, and in addition they
> are used several times elsewhere in the code. So I suggest to have
> them defined only once, as const char [], and the rest of code use
> those const strings; e.g., in the above case, use %s in the string and
> pass the strings as additional arguments to the `error' function.
Why would they be translated? Could you please elaborate?
Do you mean something like:
const char novalues[] = "\"--no-values\"";
const char allvalues[] = "\"--all-values\";"
error (_("Unknown value for PRINT_VALUES: must be: 0 or %s, 1 or %s",
novalues, allvalues));
> Also, didn't we decide to leave the messages emitted by MI
> untranslatable?
Are you referring to the underscore with brackets? [ _() ]
I'm not familiar with this device but this line has been cut and pasted from
mi_cmd_var_list_children and all the other error messages in MI have it too.
...
> > @smallexample
> > ! -var-update [@var{print-values}] @{@var{name} | "*"@}
> > @end smallexample
> >
> > Update the value of the variable object @var{name} by evaluating its
> > expression after fetching all the new values from memory or registers.
> > ! A @samp{*} causes all existing variable objects to be updated. With
> > ! just a single argument or with an optional preceding argument of 0 or
> > ! @code{--no-values}, prints only the names of the variables. With an
> > ! optional preceding argument of 1 or @code{--all-values}, also prints
> > ! their values.
>
> This text should refer to @var{print-values} you used inside
> @smallexample, otherwise it is not clear what should be used in its
> stead.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that there should be two
examples, one with print-values and one without? The previous example
explaining -var-assign already demonstrates the use of -var-update without
print-values.
> Also, I find the choice of "--all-values" unfortunate. The opposite
> of "--no-values" is something like "--with-values" or
> "--print-values", not "--all-values".
If it was a CLI command I would agree but the exact syntax of MI commands only
has to be referred to by developers and not remembered by users.
I've used "--all-values" because, in the case of -var-list-children there is a
third possibility: "--simple-values" and, to me, it seems simpler to have only
three values for print_values (mi-cmds.h):
enum print_values {
PRINT_NO_VALUES,
PRINT_ALL_VALUES,
PRINT_SIMPLE_VALUES
};
> > + @subsubheading Example
> > +
> > + @smallexample
> > + (@value{GDBP})
> > + -var-assign var1 3
> > + ^done,value="3"
> > + (@value{GDBP})
> > + -var-update --all-values *
>
> I'd suggest to have an example that uses a specific name instead of
> "*". Examples should show typical usage; if you want to show special
> cases, show them _in_addition_ to typical ones.
I've just adapted the previous example, but if you mean replace:
> + -var-update --all-values *
with
> + -var-update --all-values var1
that's no problem.
Nick