Re: [patch, doc RFA] New command-line option -na.

Doug Evans
2010-12-15T06:26:04Z

On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 10:05 PM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
> "Startup" is not well defined, from the user's POV.  The manual uses
> that term loosely as something vaguely understandable by everyone.
> Wearing my user's hat, when I type "gdb core" or "gdb -p 1234",
> everything GDB does before I get my first prompt is "startup".  That
> includes loading shared libraries (unless auto-solib-add is OFF),
> AFAIK.

Actually, give it a try.

$ gdb hello
(gdb) info shared
No shared libraries loaded at this time.
(gdb)

>> If you wish a different wording, can you provide one?  Thanks.
>
> How about this one:
>
>  If the command line specified a program to debug, or a process to
>  attach to, or a core file, @value{GDBN} loads any auto-loaded
>  scripts provided for the program or for its loaded shared libraries.
>  @xref{Auto-Loading}.

Works for me, but I'll take out "or for its loaded shared libraries". Ok?

>
>> >> +@kindex set auto-load
>> >> +@item set auto-load [yes|no]
>> >> +Enable or disable the auto-loading of scripts.
>> >> +
>> >> +@kindex show auto-load
>> >> +@item show auto-load
>> >> +Show whether auto-loading is enabled or disabled.
>> >>  @end table
>> >
>> > If we are going to leave this section inside the Python chapter, then
>> > we should say "auto-load Python scripts" etc. elsewhere, because this
>> > feature is limited to loading Python scripts, right?
>>
>> I like what it's in the patch.
>> There's no reason why one couldn't have non-python auto-loaded
>> scripts, and there's no reason at the moment for having a different
>> option to control them.
>> So I don't want "python" in the option name.
>> Having it the Python section of the manual is fine for now since
>> that's all we currently support.
>
> It's entirely unreasonable to have a command that is not limited to
> Python in a Python specific section.  We could either move it out or
> say something like "Enable or disable auto-loading of Python scripts."
> (Note that I didn't ask to have "python" in the option's name.)
> Please choose one or the other; I can go with either one.
>
> I'm also open to other suggestions, if you (or someone else) have
> them.

I disagree. The option is only applicable to Python scripts today, so
why not leave it where it is?
We can always move it later.
But I'll go with mentioning python in the command's text.