From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14347 invoked by alias); 18 Nov 2013 17:12:14 -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 14337 invoked by uid 89); 18 Nov 2013 17:12:13 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=0.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,RDNS_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: rock.gnat.com Received: from Unknown (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 17:12:11 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC6A0116685 for ; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 12:12:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id Hj67dEWQNh9c for ; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 12:12:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A9E111660A for ; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 12:12:36 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5FB24E1024; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 21:12:01 +0400 (RET) From: Joel Brobecker To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: [RFA GDB/MI] Help determine if GDB/MI command exists or not Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 17:12:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1384794719-20594-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <528631F2.40408@redhat.com> References: <528631F2.40408@redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg00477.txt.bz2 Hello, Re: http://www.sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2013-11/msg00382.html This series introduces 2 patches meant to help front-ends determine whether a given GDB/MI command exists or not. - Patch #1 introduces a new command "-info-gdb-mi-command" The patch is very close to what was proposed in the original RFC, with only minor corrections, based on feedback received then; It's basically document changes, IIRC. - Path #2 implements Pedro's idea of adding an error code to the "^error" result record. I took Pedro's patch nearly verbatim, removing the bits that dealt with invalid command-line usage (this part is left for another time, if the need becomes a little more explicit). I did notice that the additonal variable looked an awful lot like an error code, so I found it odd that we'd name if "error=" in the patch. And then I realized that Pedro's first email did say "code", so I assumed it was a brain fart, and fixed the patch to use "code". Additional remarks on that patch inside the patch's revision log (to be part of the commit when eventually pushed). I added NEWS, doco, and testcase as well. Thank you, -- Joel