From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29596 invoked by alias); 6 May 2004 22:07:37 -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 29553 invoked from network); 6 May 2004 22:07:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO natnoddy.rzone.de) (81.169.145.166) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 May 2004 22:07:34 -0000 Received: from 0-114.vpn.rwth-aachen.de (0-114.vpn.RWTH-Aachen.DE [134.130.240.114]) by post.webmailer.de (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i46M7N2b026287; Fri, 7 May 2004 00:07:23 +0200 (MEST) From: Stefan Weyergraf To: Andrew Cagney Subject: Re: [PATCH] implements MI "-file-list-exec-sections" (updated) Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 22:07:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.1 References: <200404222356.57808.stefan@weyergraf.de> <409AA124.6050601@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <409AA124.6050601@gnu.org> Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200405070007.45521.stefan@weyergraf.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-05/txt/msg00163.txt.bz2 > > diff -u -3 -p -r1.202 gdb.texinfo > > --- doc/gdb.texinfo 28 Mar 2004 12:22:55 -0000 1.202 > > +++ doc/gdb.texinfo 22 Apr 2004 21:44:09 -0000 > > @@ -14574,7 +14574,7 @@ Elena Zannoni. > > > > @item @var{mi-command} @expansion{} > > @code{[ @var{token} ] "-" @var{operation} ( " " @var{option} )* > > -@code{[} " --" @code{]} ( " " @var{parameter} )* @var{nl}} > > +[ " --" ] ( " " @var{parameter} )* @var{nl}} [...] > > -@code{"&" @var{c-string}} > > +@code{"&" @var{c-string} @var{nl}} > > > > @item @var{nl} @expansion{} > > @code{CR | CR-LF} > > This part all looks correct, can you just post it separatly with a > ChangeLog. OK > > -static void core_files_info (struct target_ops *); > > +static void core_files_info (struct target_ops *, struct ui_out *); > > Again, just this part (through out) is all ok, can you please post it. I'm not sure what exactly you mean here. Do you mean that the change to the *_info(...) _interface_ is all ok? Or the interface plus implementation (main work being in exec_info(), the others (core, go32, hpux, child, monitor, etc..) considered as follow-ups)? Or the changes to mi/cmd-file.cc and mi/mi-cmds.cc? Or all 3? (which I hope) > Now the fun bit ... > > You'll have noticed I sent out an e-mail asking about ``inferior vs > target'', lets ignore that question for this output... > > > +@smallexample > > +(@value{GDBP}) > > +123-file-list-exec-sections > > +~"Symbols from \"/var/home/ouk/projects/ht20/testproject/test-g\".\n" > > +123^done,targets=[ > > List of targets reflecting the target stack, nice. > > {target-type-long="Local exec file",target-type-short="exec", > > here ``target-'' is implied, so would just: > > short-name= > long-name= > entry-point= > > be better? Yes, I agree this is be better. > > > +filename="/var/home/ouk/projects/ht20/testproject/test-g",file-type="elf > >32-i386", +target-entrypoint="0x08048380",sections=[ > > List of sections, again nice. > > > +{start-address="0x08048134",end-address="0x08048147",section-name=".inte > >rp"}, [...] > >}, > > +{start-address="0x0804970c",end-address="0x08049710",section-name=".bss" > >}]}] +(@value{GDBP}) > > +@end smallexample > > I like it. But lets get the other changes in first. Are you really only talking about the doc-changes here? If that's true and (thus) you are agreeing to my main (ie. gdb/mi source code) changes, why would we want to wait here? Thanks, Stefan