From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26047 invoked by alias); 9 Apr 2003 20:38:33 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 26015 invoked from network); 9 Apr 2003 20:38:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO white) (68.14.146.65) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 Apr 2003 20:38:32 -0000 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 193MKs-0005sw-00; Wed, 09 Apr 2003 16:38:22 -0400 Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 20:38:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Thierry Schneider Subject: Re: [RFA/ping] new GDB/MI command: -symbol-info-linetable Message-ID: <20030409203822.GB22063@white> Mail-Followup-To: Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Thierry Schneider References: <20030310021923.GB27274@gnat.com> <20030331042235.GA28977@gnat.com> <20030409202337.GM1170@gnat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030409202337.GM1170@gnat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00172.txt.bz2 On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 04:23:37PM -0400, Joel Brobecker wrote: > Hello, > > > 2003-03-09 Thierry Schneider > > > > * mi-main.c (mi_cmd_symbol_info_linetable): New function. > > * mi-cmds.h (mi_cmd_symbol_info_linetable): Add declaration. > > * mi-cmds.c (mi_cmds): Add entry for new MI command. > > * gdbmi.texinfo (GDB/MI Symbol Query): Add documentation for > > new MI command. The MI documentation gdbmi.texinfo was merged to gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo and the format changed. You'll probably get told to fix that. Just happened to me. :) > I was wondering if an MI maintainer could have a look at this patch, > as it would be very useful for GVD. I think cgdb will also appreciate > it. > > There are 2 aspects in this patch: > 1. The new user command, its name and syntax > 2. The implementation itself > > If at least we could agree on 1, both GVD and cgdb could move forward > while we work on the implementation side if there is any issue with > it... > > The patch with its documentation was posted in the following message: > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2003-03/msg00208.html > > Thanks, > -- > Joel