Re: [PATCHv2 2/2] gdb: Change how frames are selected for 'frame' and 'info frame'.

[Andrew Burgess <andrew dot burgess at embecosm dot com>]

* Philippe Waroquiers <philippe.waroquiers@skynet.be> [2018-06-05 23:15:16 +0200]:

> On Tue, 2018-06-05 at 19:53 +0100, Andrew Burgess wrote:
> > > If we do need a keyword, how about "frame add"?
> > 
> > Personally, I think 'add' is worse than 'create' - what's the frame
> > being added too?  But I do acknowledge that 'create' is not ideal
> > either.
> > 
> > I wonder if 'new' is better than 'create', maybe implies less "making
> > something in the inferior"?  Or how about, 'for' instead, like this:
> > 
> >   (gdb) frame for STACK-ADDR PC-ADDR
> 
> If nothing is added or created or ...,
> maybe you could also use one of:
>     (gdb) frame interpret STACK-ADDR PC-ADDR
> or
>     (gdb) frame look STACK-ADDR PC-ADDR
> or
>     (gdb) frame view STACK-ADDR PC-ADDR

I like 'view', the docs could read:

    View a frame that is not part of GDB backtrace.  The frame viewed
    has stack address @var{stack-addr}, and optionally, a program
    counter address of @var{pc-addr}.

    This is useful mainly if the chaining of stack frames has been
    damaged by a bug, making it impossible for @value{GDBN} to assign
    numbers properly to all frames.  In addition, this can be useful
    when your program has multiple stacks and switches between them.

Eli, how does this sound?

Thanks,
Andrew