From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20462 invoked by alias); 6 May 2015 11:30:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 20417 invoked by uid 89); 6 May 2015 11:30:00 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 06 May 2015 11:29:59 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9A258E717 for ; Wed, 6 May 2015 11:29:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from host1.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-27.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.27]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t46BTtA9020567 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 6 May 2015 07:29:57 -0400 Date: Wed, 06 May 2015 11:30:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Phil Muldoon Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 8/9] compile: New compile printf Message-ID: <20150506112954.GA19264@host1.jankratochvil.net> References: <20150411194322.29128.52477.stgit@host1.jankratochvil.net> <20150411194429.29128.61494.stgit@host1.jankratochvil.net> <5540FE29.5050004@redhat.com> <20150503140605.GC18394@host1.jankratochvil.net> <5549EB71.1070101@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5549EB71.1070101@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-05/txt/msg00093.txt.bz2 On Wed, 06 May 2015 12:22:41 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote: > I understand that. But what I was asking is (after the series is wholly > pushed), what is the advantage of "(gdb) compile printf" > over "(gdb) compile print printf (...)" and "(gdb) call printf (...)". This patch, that is [PATCH v3 8/9] compile: New compile printf without the part [PATCH v3 9/9] compile: compile printf: gdbserver support is really just that (gdb) compile print printf (...) and the patch is also therefore very simple. According to Phil - roughly, not citing - such 'compile printf' was simple enough to code to make it worth such a feature, despite it has many shortcomings. > Agreed on the latter, but the question really is: why do we need > "set compile-printf-args" instead of using "set compile-args" for > all expression evaluation through the compiler? > Shouldn't "-Werror=format" be in "set compile-args" too? Why not, this is a matter of opinion. IMO cc itself should have -Werror by default as otherwise by default it is willing to knowingly produce crashing programs. The only safe warnings are -Wunused* ones and maybe few others. So again, this patch tries to make minimal changes to what is the current established wrong standard. Jan