From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29113 invoked by alias); 12 Apr 2007 00:53:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 29058 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Apr 2007 00:53:53 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.palmsource.com (HELO mx1.palmsource.com) (12.7.175.13) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 01:53:50 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.domain.tld (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47F0E5F242; Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:53:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.palmsource.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx1.palmsource.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 30912-06-6; Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:53:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ussunex03.svl.access-company.com (ussunm001.palmsource.com [192.168.101.12]) by mx1.palmsource.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 536AC5F100; Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:53:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 192.168.92.56 ([192.168.92.56]) by ussunex03.svl.access-company.com ([192.168.101.12]) via Exchange Front-End Server owa.access-company.com ([10.0.20.19]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 00:55:16 +0000 Received: from svmsnyderlnx by owa.access-company.com; 11 Apr 2007 17:53:51 -0700 Subject: Re: [RFA] set debug mi From: Michael Snyder To: Nick Roberts Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: <17949.32037.351459.701252@farnswood.snap.net.nz> References: <1176335457.26620.48.camel@svmsnyderlnx.palmsource.com> <17949.32037.351459.701252@farnswood.snap.net.nz> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 00:53:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1176339230.26620.58.camel@svmsnyderlnx.palmsource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.1 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 X-SW-Source: 2007-04/txt/msg00155.txt.bz2 On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 12:28 +1200, Nick Roberts wrote: > > Anybody think this is useful? > > Maybe. I'll take a look. Have you used it? Would it be better to register > it as an MI command so that the user doesn't inadvertantly turn it on? I guess > that the output would confuse any front end. So far I've used it only in the process of implementing it, but I implemented it because I plan to use it. As far as inadvertant activation etc., I look at it as analogous to the "set debug remote" command. Perhaps both should be made "maintainer" commands.