From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21967 invoked by alias); 2 Feb 2004 07:35:38 -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 21959 invoked from network); 2 Feb 2004 07:35:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO gateway.sf.frob.com) (64.81.54.130) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 Feb 2004 07:35:37 -0000 Received: from magilla.sf.frob.com (magilla.sf.frob.com [198.49.250.228]) by gateway.sf.frob.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1218357B; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 23:35:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from magilla.sf.frob.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by magilla.sf.frob.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i127ZaOi011041; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 23:35:36 -0800 Received: (from roland@localhost) by magilla.sf.frob.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i127ZZnS011037; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 23:35:35 -0800 Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 07:35:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200402020735.i127ZZnS011037@magilla.sf.frob.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Roland McGrath To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] add-symbol-file-from-memory command In-Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii's message of , 2 February 2004 08:18:39 +0200 Emacs: (setq software-quality (/ 1 number-of-authors)) X-SW-Source: 2004-02/txt/msg00021.txt.bz2 > . The first line of the doc string, up until the first \n, should > be a short description of the command, since that is what GDB > displays when several commands are listed (e.g., by `apropos' or > `help files' commands). [Yes, I know: `add-symbol-file' that is > already there has the same problem.] Ok. I used add-symbol-file as the model. How about this text? "Load the symbols out of memory from a dynamically loaded object file.\n\ Specify an expression for the address of the file's shared object file header." > . It is not entirely clear what could ADDR be. Is that a numerical > address, or something more flexible? The reason that this is > important is that the command's completion function should be set > according to the possible arguments it could accept; as written, > the command's completion will try to complete on symbol names, > which I'm not sure to be appropriate. It uses `parse_and_eval_address', again modelled on the add-symbol-file command's implementation. I think that makes generic completion, including symbol names or whatever, the appropriate thing. > Also, if this code is approved, please add to the manual a > description of the new command. Ok.