This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [patch][python] 2 of 5 - Frame filter MI code changes.


On 13/03/13 20:56, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>> "Phil" == Phil Muldoon <pmuldoon@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> Phil> Currently (before my patch) the commands self parse their own --
> Phil> values.  One of the things from the last review was you wanted where
> Phil> possible to use mi-getopt to parse options.
> 
> Phil> It would seem weird to me to mix - and -- in these commands.
> 
> I mean if you change the string in the mi_opt table from
> "no-frame-filters" to "-no-frame-filters", then this should cause
> mi_getopt to accept the "--" form without affecting other callers.
> 
> Tom
> 

Originally I did do that, but the error message if you mistype an
option generated by mi_getopt is wrong:

-stack-list-frames --no-frame-falters
^error,msg="-stack-list-frames: Unknown option ``-no-frame-falters''"
(gdb)

The error messages always assumes a "-".  And if I was going to end up
patching mi_getopt then I might as well go ahead and handle "--"
options properly.

I am not sure what you mean other callers, though.  Other callers are
not affected.  "-" options work fine still, as do "--".  Anyway, I have
no strong feelings on this.  If the error message above is fine with
you we can do that, or keep the existing patch.

What do you prefer?

Cheers,

Phil


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]