From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2256 invoked by alias); 25 Feb 2005 21:22:12 -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 2190 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2005 21:22:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 25 Feb 2005 21:22:06 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.44 #1 (Debian)) id 1D4muQ-0000wn-HQ; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 16:22:02 -0500 Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 08:25:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: mi tty commands Message-ID: <20050225212201.GA3592@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20050224203535.GA19967@white> <01c51b79$Blat.v2.4$4089e9a0@zahav.net.il> <20050225211911.GA21363@white> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050225211911.GA21363@white> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i X-SW-Source: 2005-02/txt/msg00266.txt.bz2 On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 04:19:11PM -0500, Bob Rossi wrote: > On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 10:32:21PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 15:35:35 -0500 > > > From: Bob Rossi > > > > > > What doco needs to be done for this? > > > > Any new MI commands should be documented in gdb.texinfo. > > Is everyone happy with these commands? or should I remove them, and make > an interface to the set/show CLI commands (which would access the same > data)? No, I think individual MI commands is a much better idea. There's too much historical baggage in the CLI's set/show, and MI is not supposed to depend on the CLI. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC