From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3562 invoked by alias); 19 May 2008 15:20:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 3553 invoked by uid 22791); 19 May 2008 15:20:42 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 19 May 2008 15:20:25 +0000 Received: (qmail 9614 invoked from network); 19 May 2008 15:20:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.local) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 19 May 2008 15:20:23 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] 09/10 Add "continue --all" Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 17:07:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: Joel Brobecker , Eli Zaretskii References: <200805061649.50105.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20080509122003.GA24290@caradoc.them.org> <20080511160001.GI28890@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20080511160001.GI28890@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200805191620.23279.pedro@codesourcery.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-05/txt/msg00562.txt.bz2 A Sunday 11 May 2008 17:00:01, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > If you don't like the all prefix then we can go back to continue > > --all, or even just continue all. Continue takes a numeric argument > > and all will not conflict. > I hadn't proposed continue all, because we evaluate the integer as an expression, so that prevents the highly dubious valued form of using the contents of a variable named "all" in the inferior with "continue all". "thread apply n" has the same issue, so I realized that it's a moot concern. :-) > FWIW, I like "continue all", but I think I prefer the "all" prefix. > I would probably have "all continue" be its own command rather > than having it an alias of "thread apply all continue" for the > reasons that Pedro mentioned, and it shouldn't be much more work than > the solution based on command aliasing. > > Using the "all" command prefix would be very elegant when we add > more commands. This assumes that there are other commands that > we'd like to provide under that same prefix. I'm still not sure. Will we allow later to do things like: 'continue -t 4' -> continue thread 1, even though I have selected thread 1. Which would be the same as -exec-continue --thread="4". ? 'continue -a' feels like an extension to that. OTOH, Should we have "thread apply all stopped do_x", and "thread apply all all running" instead? Could be aliased to allr, alls, for example. -- Pedro Alves