From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3934 invoked by alias); 22 Dec 2008 20:26:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 3926 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Dec 2008 20:26:17 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 20:25:36 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 141B810999; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 20:25:34 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB17E1089C; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 20:25:33 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LErLI-0008Nk-Rf; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:25:32 -0500 Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 20:26:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?S=E9rgio_Durigan_J=FAnior?= , tromey@redhat.com, msnyder@vmware.com, mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: "info proc map" for corefiles Message-ID: <20081222202532.GA31896@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , =?iso-8859-1?Q?S=E9rgio_Durigan_J=FAnior?= , tromey@redhat.com, msnyder@vmware.com, mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <1229626216.6602.15.camel@miki> <494AC2D3.9090705@vmware.com> <1229702034.6602.18.camel@miki> <1229703833.6602.28.camel@miki> <1229960072.27356.0.camel@miki> <1229975651.27356.2.camel@miki> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) 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: 2008-12/txt/msg00391.txt.bz2 On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 10:03:19PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > I thought we later agreed on having something like "info core", with > "info proc map" calling that? I wonder if we should rename or redefine "info proc". It is currently /proc specific, so Sergio's new work for core files doesn't belong there. But while it exists we can't reasonably add a separate "info process". Or should we fold this into "info inferior" and make it work for other kinds of inferiors? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery