> On Feb 26, 2015, at 10:46 AM, Siva Chandra <sivachan...@google.com> wrote: > > Firstly, thanks for taking time to answer and respond to me. > > I would like to present some historical context here wrt the "explore" > command in GDB. Back when it was added, my use for it was to > understand GCC's mega structs and unions. There was something like a > flag typically which kind of specified how to interpret (for example, > which field of a union is relevant) the rest of struct and union. So, > it all made sense back then to have an interactive command in single > session which helped me get to the relevant parts of a struct/union > value. IMO, such a use case is still relevant. However, I will go with > what your final take on this.
Note, in lldb you could do the same job you are describing here quite handily by writing a synthetic child provider. Since the Python data formatters can do logic, it would be straight-forward to write one that checks field A, and based on that decides which other fields to print. The advantage of this is that then any expression that resolves to a variable of that type will be printed appropriately without requiring any special action on the user's part. Jim > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 9:32 AM, <jing...@apple.com> wrote: >> I still don't see what value you get joining the code to do "Give me >> one answer with a default value" with the much more complex >> "enter an interactive session that may have many questions (and >> you might want to alter the prompt to show where you are in the >> session currently, etc." I have no objection to adding the latter if >> there's a good use for it. But given that the IOHandlerConfirm is >> around 10 lines of code, I see no benefit in complicating it with the >> code to implement the more complex session. > > I will go with this suggestion iff we do decide to add "explore" to LLDB. _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
