From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA/RFC] New command: ``start'' Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 22:24:00 -0000 Message-id: <20040524222421.GA31496@nevyn.them.org> References: <20040518224131.GA6026@nevyn.them.org> <20040519153615.GD10684@gnat.com> <20040519154155.GA8567@nevyn.them.org> <20040520010145.GQ10684@gnat.com> <20040520134600.GA11705@nevyn.them.org> <20040520160259.GV10684@gnat.com> <20040520171404.GA3880@nevyn.them.org> <20040520221214.GC10684@gnat.com> <20040521002645.GA17522@nevyn.them.org> <20040521013133.GH10684@gnat.com> X-SW-Source: 2004-05/msg00695.html On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 06:31:33PM -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > This looks pretty good. I have one question: > > > > > + /* Check that there is a program to debug. Some languages such as Ada > > > + need to search inside the program symbols for the location where to > > > + put the temporary breakpoint before starting. */ > > > + if (!have_full_symbols () && !have_partial_symbols ()) > > > + error ("No symbol table loaded. Use the \"file\" command."); > > > > Shouldn't you accept have_minimal_symbols here? > > Hmmmm, that's a very sharp remark. > > Looking at our current implementation in begin_command, we indeed only > rely on minimal symbols, which makes sense (we only need the address, > we know how to read it afterwards). So a check against > have_minimal_symbols is indeed more appropriate. > > Thanks for catching this. > Here is an updated version. > > 2004-05-20 Joel Brobecker > > * infcmd.c (kill_if_already_running): New function, extracted > from run_command(). > (run_command): Replace extracted code by call to > kill_if_already_running(). > (start_command): New function. > (_initialize_infcmd): Add "start" command. I believe everyone's comments have been satisfied now, so this is OK. Please make some minor typographical fixes and check it in: > +static void > +run_command (char *args, int from_tty) > +{ > + char *exec_file; > + > + dont_repeat (); > + > + Extra blank line. > + /* Insert the temporary breakpoint, and run... */ > + tbreak_command (main_name(), 0); Missing space. > +Run the debugged program until the beginning of the main procedure.\n\ > +This command is a combination of a tbreak command followed by run.\n\ > +You may specify arguments to give to your program, they will be given\n\ > +to the underlying run command."); How would you feel about this instead? +Run the debugged program until the beginning of the main procedure.\n\ +You may specify arguments to give to your program, just as with the\n\ +\"run\" command."); -- Daniel Jacobowitz