Re: Unifying the GCC Debugging Interface

[Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>]

Hi,

On Mon, 19 Nov 2012, Martin Jambor wrote:

> Well, this is what I was actually afraid of.  If things like generic
> or tree dump of a tree value is selected by new TDF_ flags, then you
> are in danger of just replacing current mess in function names by a
> mess of constants.  I'd much rather have functions dump_generic,
> dump_tree (and dump_function!), with consistent parameters, for the
> three very different dumps than TDF_gimple, TDF_tree and TDF_function
> constants which would do some sort of second level function
> overloading.  I understand my approach would not be a real grand
> unification, but I believe that either way we'll have to remember a
> few identifiers to make dumping useful.

And <tab>-completion is faster with different function names than when the 
larger layout (in contrast to some little details) is determined by a 
flag.  Look:


(gdb) dump_s<tab>tuff (t, TDF_f<tab>unction)

vs

(gdb) dump_f<tab>unction (t)

So, yes, the larger layouting should be determined by name of the dump 
function.  A flag argument might look nice from an interface design 
perspective, but it's harder to use in the debugger.


Ciao,
Michael.