This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 3/3 v2] Implement completion limiting
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Doug Evans <xdje42 at gmail dot com>
- Cc: gbenson at redhat dot com, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 12:15:19 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3 v2] Implement completion limiting
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1417094168-25868-1-git-send-email-gbenson at redhat dot com> <1417094168-25868-4-git-send-email-gbenson at redhat dot com> <m3y4ql4psf dot fsf at sspiff dot org> <20141210122233 dot GA7299 at blade dot nx> <m3mw6v4gm8 dot fsf at sspiff dot org> <21671 dot 20308 dot 262958 dot 475080 at ruffy2 dot mtv dot corp dot google dot com> <20150107084255 dot GA17867 at blade dot nx> <21680 dot 36641 dot 315766 dot 209208 at ruffy2 dot mtv dot corp dot google dot com> <83a91r6lbd dot fsf at gnu dot org> <CADPb22TOJ2uqQKyzEpQyCrm92-ARexduUk0b2rDqJwQvdU1uLw at mail dot gmail dot com> <20150115153930 dot GA14900 at blade dot nx> <m3vbjy9iqr dot fsf at sspiff dot org>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> From: Doug Evans <xdje42@gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 21:19:24 -0800
>
> This patch puts the warning at the end.
Thanks.
> +#if 0 //xyzdje
> + if (max_reached)
> + {
> + VEC_safe_push (char_ptr, result,
> + xstrprintf (_("%s *** List may be truncated,"
> + " max-completions reached. ***"),
> + text));
> + }
> +#endif
This part should probably go away.
> +/* Return a message indicating that the maximum number of completions
> + has been reached and that there may be more. */
> +
> +const char *
> +get_max_completions_reached_message (void)
> +{
> + return _("*** List may be truncated, max-completions reached. ***");
> +}
I'd prefer a different wording:
(More completions follow; omitted because max-completions exceeded.)
My problem with your wording is two-fold:
. "may be truncated" can be interpreted to the effect that GDB
doesn't know whether truncation really happened; I think it does
. "reached" is inaccurate; "exceeded" is more accurate
The rest of the change in wording is just to follow the style that I
frequently see in other applications in similar cases.
The documentation parts are OK (but will need an update if you accept
the above suggestion).