From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20398 invoked by alias); 5 Jun 2006 21:28:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 20346 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Jun 2006 21:28:52 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from eastrmmtao05.cox.net (HELO eastrmmtao05.cox.net) (68.230.240.34) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 05 Jun 2006 21:28:50 +0000 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([68.9.66.48]) by eastrmmtao05.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP id <20060605212848.KUBR26910.eastrmmtao05.cox.net@localhost.localdomain> for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2006 17:28:48 -0400 Received: from bob by localhost.localdomain with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FnMd3-0003IV-F3 for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Mon, 05 Jun 2006 17:28:53 -0400 Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 21:28:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: starting gdb/mi from FE Message-ID: <20060605212853.GD10045@brasko.net> References: <20060605134517.GA25925@brasko.net> <20060605212532.GA1935@nevyn.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060605212532.GA1935@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-06/txt/msg00051.txt.bz2 On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 05:25:32PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 10:56:30PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 09:45:17 -0400 > > > From: Bob Rossi > > > > > > $ ./gdb/gdb -q -i=mi4,mi3 ./main > > > > Multiple values separated by a comma is not how GNU programs accept > > multiple values for the same option. -i=mi4 -i=mi3 is more like it. > > Is it? I couldn't find anything about this in e.g. the coding > standards. > > I find -i=mi4,mi3 more intuitive here; I'd interpret -i=mi4 -i=mi3 as > either "use both" or "use the last one on the command line", but > -i=mi4,mi3 as either "use both" or "use the first one which works". > I think the "use the last one" behavior is fairly common; otherwise > there'd be no way to invoke a command specified as "gdb -i=mi2" in mi1 > mode without sedding the user-specified command looking for -i options. > > Of course I don't have a strong opinion on this. Just musing; feel > free to ignore. I agree with you, which is obviously why I wrote it that way. I'm completely ignorant to GNU standards though. Most of what I know I've learned here from you kind people. Bob Rossi