From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 61203 invoked by alias); 25 Apr 2019 19:44:57 -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 61193 invoked by uid 89); 25 Apr 2019 19:44:56 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=mysterious X-HELO: mail-wr1-f47.google.com Received: from mail-wr1-f47.google.com (HELO mail-wr1-f47.google.com) (209.85.221.47) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 25 Apr 2019 19:44:56 +0000 Received: by mail-wr1-f47.google.com with SMTP id c6so1053186wrm.1 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2019 12:44:55 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from ?IPv6:2001:8a0:f913:f700:4c97:6d52:2cea:997b? ([2001:8a0:f913:f700:4c97:6d52:2cea:997b]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c20sm29913875wre.28.2019.04.25.12.44.52 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=AEAD-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 25 Apr 2019 12:44:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [RFA] Implement show | set can-call-inferior-functions [on|off] To: Tom Tromey , Eli Zaretskii References: <20190423215826.9936-1-philippe.waroquiers@skynet.be> <83sgu73nde.fsf@gnu.org> <1556141127.22002.9.camel@skynet.be> <83bm0u1ult.fsf@gnu.org> <87bm0udy4r.fsf@tromey.com> Cc: Philippe Waroquiers , gdb-patches@sourceware.org From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <5fcb52fe-655b-f9b9-ab4c-21ef54a67b88@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2019 19:44:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87bm0udy4r.fsf@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2019-04/txt/msg00562.txt.bz2 On 4/25/19 2:15 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: > An error definitely seems like the correct thing to do here. Other > choices will give silently mysterious behavior. > > A convenience variable is fine, too, though I suspect it will be little > used. I wouldn't require it for this patch to go in. Agreed. You could argue that it'd be better to instead come up with a facility for CLI to inspect the value of any set/show option, though. But you can already do that with Python's gdb.parameter, so I guess it may not be that pressing to have a pure CLI mechanism. Thanks, Pedro Alves