From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18671 invoked by alias); 11 Jul 2008 19:12:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 18660 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Jul 2008 19:12:52 -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; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 19:12:35 +0000 Received: (qmail 23293 invoked from network); 11 Jul 2008 19:12:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.local) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 11 Jul 2008 19:12:33 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: Daniel Jacobowitz Subject: Re: [MI non-stop 07/11, RFA] Allow all CLI command even if target is executing. Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 19:12:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: Vladimir Prus , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <200806282055.45829.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <200807112258.25104.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <20080711190421.GA23117@caradoc.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20080711190421.GA23117@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200807112012.33791.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: 2008-07/txt/msg00224.txt.bz2 A Friday 11 July 2008 20:04:21, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 10:58:24PM +0400, Vladimir Prus wrote: > > I've of the same opinion. It seems to me that examining each and every > > command is not quite practical. So, we either get to enable all commands > > and then disable, or clarify error messages, or disable all commands, and > > enable those that actually have to work. Enabling all commands seems > > safer, since the worst problem is inaccurate error message. > Well, or inconsistent data structures or assertion failures if > something changes underneath... anyway, good enough for me; it's OK. > Does this make the command flag obsolete? That has an easy workaround. Don't call the command. Disabling a command that would otherwise execute fine does not have a workaround (at least currently it doesn't). -- Pedro Alves